Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (MACKAY TREATY).

Mr. HANNON: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the interests of British exporters, he will issue instructions to the British Legation in Peking to co-operate with the Legations of the signatories of the Nine-Power Customs Treaty to ensure the ratification of Article VIII of the Mackay Treaty?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): If, as I assume, the hon. Member refers to the fact that Article 8 of the Mackay Treaty, providing for the abolition of "likin," has not in fact been carried out by the Chinese authorities, I can assure him that His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the importance of the matter. They are indeed at present in consultation with His Majesty's Minister at Peking as to the best means of dealing with this question at the special Conference to be held in pursuance of the Nine-Power Customs Treaty, but it must be realised that great difficulties exist owing to the present disorganised conditions in China and the lack of control of the Central Government over many of the provincial authorities.

Mr. HANNON: Does the hon. Gentleman realise the real gravity of the situation created by this new Chinese law with regard to British trade in China, if it becomes operative will he do his best to get the co-operation of the other foreign Powers to see that this law does not become operative?

Oral Answers to Questions — BULGARIA.

Mr. HUDSON: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been drawn to the arrest by the Bulgarian Government of over 300 members of the Macedonian revolutionary organisation; and whether he can make any statement on the subject?

Mr. PONSONBY: Yes, Sir, the facts are as stated. I earnestly trust that this action will improve the relations between Jugo-Slavia and Bulgaria, which were causing so much anxiety. His Majesty's Government have always felt that only by the establishment of terms of confidence and good-will between Belgrade and Sofia can this persistent menace to the peace of the Balkans be removed.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

BRITISH STAFF (GENEVA).

Mr. GILBERT: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the number of the British staff employed by the League of Nations at Geneva; what is the approximate annual cost to this country; what part of this staff is employed on labour questions; and can he give approximately their cost out of the total amount?

Mr. PONSONBY: The reply to this question is rather long, and, with the permission of the House, I will have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The reply is as follows:

The staff of the Secretariat-General of the League at Geneva in October last numbered 391, of whom 124 were British. The staff of the International Labour Office at the same time numbered 332, of whom 81 were British. Citizens of the self-governing Dominions and India, which are separate members of the League, are not reckoned as British for this purpose. Salaries are paid by the League and not by the different Governments to their respective nationals. The budget of the Secretariat-General for 1924 estimates an expenditure of 5,581,862 gold francs for salaries and wages at Geneva, and the budget for the International labour Office 4,308,295 gold francs for the same purpose
The total expenditure of the offices is 12,298,449 francs and 7,032,295 francs respectively. This country pays nearly one-tenth of the League expenses.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTIONS.

Mr. CLAYTON: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour which of the Conventions of the International Labour Office have been ratified by Germany, France and Belgium, respectively; and what was the date of the respective ratifications?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Thomas Shaw): The countries named have not ratified any of the draft Conventions adopted by the International Labour Conference. I am, however, sending the hon. Member a copy of the "Official Bulletin" published by the International Labour Organisation, which contains a note upon the measures taken in these and other countries to give effect to the draft Conventions and recommendations so far adopted.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour what countries have ratified the Washington Maternity Convention of the International Labour Conference; which of the ratifying countries has actually passed legislation to give effect to the convention; and whether he will arrange for this matter to be placed on the agenda of the next meeting of the International Labour Conference with a view to the consideration of any amendments to the Washington Convention which may conduce to a more general acceptance of some agreed measure of progress in this matter?

Mr. SHAW: As regards the first two parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the very full written answer which I gave in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Harvey) on the 6th March. As to the third part of the question, I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health regarding the policy to be adopted by His Majesty's Government in connection with this draft Convention.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In order to get other countries to take some action, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that
this matter is raised again at the next-meeting of the International Labour Conference?

Mr. SHAW: I can give a general assurance that, as far as the Government remains in office, it will do its best to forward the passing of all the Conventions that have been agreed upon, and to develop the International Labour Office as far as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY.

BRITISH OCCUPIED AREA (CIVILIAN STAFF).

Mr. GILBERT: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any civilian staff under his Department are employed in the British occupied area in Germany; and can he state how many persons are so employed, and what is the approximate cost?

Mr. PONSONBY: Apart from the British Consul-General and Vice-Consul at Cologne, the only civilian staff employed under the Foreign Office consists of the staff of the British Department of the Inter-Allied Rhineland High Commission. The total number, including the British High Commissioner, is 141, and the estimated cost for the year 1924–25 is £75,000. This expenditure is borne by the German Government.

EIGHT-HOURS DAY.

Captain BOWYER: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether the British Government were consulted as to the revocation of the orders enforcing an eight-hours day in occupied territory; and, if so, what instructions were given by His Majesty's Government on this matter?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave on 10th March to the hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham. Neither His Majesty's Government nor the Inter-Allied High Commission are concerned with the application in the occupied territory of German laws except in so far as such laws may affect the maintenance, safety and requirements of the troops of occupation. In raising no objection to the application in the occupied territory of the German decree of 21st December, 1923, His Majesty's High Com-
missioner was acting in accordance with his general instructions.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Is it correct to state, as was stated by the Minister of Labour, that there is an eight-hour day in force in Germany?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am sure anything the Minister of Labour states on that matter is sure to be correct.

Mr. REMER: Is it not a fact that the hours in Germany are something like 60 a week?

Oral Answers to Questions — LIQUOR TRAFFIC (UNITED STATES).

Mr. FOOT: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to a letter recently sent to a number of business men in Scotland by H. Nicholson, accountant, of 34, Annette Street, Glasgow, inviting their investments to assist in the shipment of liquor to America, and offering the return of the capital, together with 25 per cent. interest at the completion of the voyage, and stating that similar shipments leave the Clyde practically every week; and whether steps can be devised to suppress this traffic, which depends for its profit upon the evasion of the laws of a friendly State?

Mr. PONSONBY: In reply to the first part of the question is in the negative; the question whether steps can be taken to suppress this traffic has received careful consideration and it has been found that there are great difficulties in the way of framing suitable legislation without imposing restrictions which would seriously hamper legitimate trade. As the hon. Member is aware, a treaty with the United States has recently been laid before Parliament which should facilitate the control of smuggling into United territory.

Mr. FOOT: Will the Government and the Under-Secretary have regard in this case to the difficulties and troubles explained by Sir Auckland Geddes last week as to the shameful humiliation of the Ambassador in America, who had again and again to make appeals on behalf of so-called British subjects?

Mr. PONSONBY: Yes, Sir. That consideration will be taken into account.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Would this not be a suitable opportunity for using the new cruisers?

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is not the principal difficulty our own national policy of licences for exportation?

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Perhaps the Glasgow Members will be able to exercise some control.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

OIL SUPPLIES.

Mr. BAKER: 9.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, seeing that the Government secured an economy of 7½ millions to the Navy during the period of the War by its control over the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, he will say whether he has secured specially favourable terms for the future?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): The contract entered into in 1914 between the Admiralty and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company provided for supplies over a long period ahead, and not merely far the period of the War.

ADMIRALTY STAFF.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 10.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will give the reasons for the increase in the Admiralty staff from 2,072 in July, 1914, to 3,569 at the present time, seeing that the total numbers borne on Vote A of the Admiralty have decreased from 146,047 to 99,477 during the same period?

Mr. AMMON: As the reply is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The reply is as follows:

The increase in numbers is due to several causes:—
(1) Increased or new work developing on the Department as the result of Acts of the Legislature or decisions of His Majesty's Government such as Pensions Increase Act, Injuries in War Compensation Act, Merchant Shipping (Salvage) Act, 1916, Representation of the People Act, Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920;
2303
Admiralty Pensions Act, 1921, the introduction of Marriage Allowance, the payment of Naval Allotments weekly instead of monthly, the periodical revision of Naval Officers' pay and Allowances, and of Civil Salaries and Wages, the extended use of cost accountancy, etc.
(2) Work arising directly from the War. A staff numbering approximately 250 is at present employed on this account. This number will be very considerably reduced during the present month.
(3) The expansion of the Naval Staff which was practically non-existent before the War, and the development of all technical and experimental services due to the introduction of new weapons and forms of defence necessarily involve an increase in the staff of the Admiralty.
(4) Temporary loan of a staff of 65 draughtsmen, etc., from the Dockyards to deal with the designs of the new cruisers.

These developments are responsible for increases of staff which greatly outweigh reductions possible on account of decrease in personnel or of ships in commission.

I would add that the numbers are constantly under review with a view to effecting reductions.

REAR-ADMIRAL SINCLAIR.

Mr. HARDIE: 11.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether Rear-Admiral H. F. P. Sinclair, C.B., is in receipt of any salary from public funds apart from naval half-pay; if so, for what services does he draw this money; and why is he shown as unemployed upon the Navy List while appearing on the active list?

Mr. AMMON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative and the second part docs not therefore arise. With regard to the last part of the question, I think my hon. Friend must be under some misapprehension, since the fact of an officer being on the Active List does not prevent him from being on half-pay.

Mr. HARDIE: May I have the assurance of the hon. Gentleman that such services will not be used in Indus-
trial areas where there is industrial unrest in the form of agents-provocateur, or any other provocation?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is putting an insinuation in the form of a supplementary question, and that cannot be allowed.

Mr. HARDIE: Then what are the services rendered for the salary stated? Surely the House has a right to know that.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member puts his question in that form, it will be right.

DIRECTOR OF NAVAL CONSTRUCTION.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 12.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any appointment has yet been made to the office of Director of Naval Construction; how long this appointment has been vacant; and what is the reason for the delay?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. F. Hodges): I am now able to announce that Mr. W. J. Berry, C.B., Director of Warship Production, has been appointed to the office of Director of Naval Construction.

SINGAPORE NAVAL BASE.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 13.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any decision has yet been made with regard to the proposed naval base at Singapore?

Mr. AMMON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister last Monday.

CRUISER CONSTRUCTION.

Mr. MILLS: 16.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the reason why the cruiser "Methuselah" which was laid down in 1916 is still on the stocks unfinished; and will he take steps to secure the completion of its construction?

Mr. AMMON: I cannot identify the vessel named by my hon. Friend, but eight years would seem a short time for the building of a vessel which would have the long life such a name would imply.

Mr. MILLS: Will the hon. Gentleman accept through you, Mr. Speaker, the revision of the name supplied by a rear-admiral from Southsea, that the cruiser's name is "Effingham"; that it has been on the stocks since 1916, and has cost £3,750,000; and, if so, when is it likely to be completed.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member seems to know more about it than the Minister.

Rear-Admiral Sir GUY GAUNT: 20.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when the tenders for the cruisers will be issued?

Mr. AMMON: The invitations to tender for the proposed cruisers have already been issued.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Has an invitation been sent to Barrow?

Sir GRATTAN DOYLE: I hope Newcastle-upon-Tyne will also receive an invitation.

Viscountess ASTOR: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: These supplementaries are more suitable for the backstairs.

Sir G. GAUNT: 21.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any decision has yet been arrived at with regard to other items in the programme of construction announced by the late Government?

Mr. AMMON: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply of the 27th February to the hon. Member for Devonport.

RETIRED OFFICERS (WAR SERVICE).

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 22.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if the question of the retired pay for retired naval officers who served in the War was considered by an Admiralty committee; if so, by whom the committee was appointed; and will he publish the names of the committee?

Mr. AMMON: The question of the suspension of the retired pay of retired naval officers called out for service during the War was considered by the Officers' Pay Committee of 1919; this committee was appointed by the Admiralty and consisted of Rear-Admiral Sir Lionel
Halsey, K.C.M.G., C.B. (President); Captain L. A. B. Donaldson, C.M.G., R.N.; Captain G. O. Stephenson, C.M.G., R.N.; Commander Dudley North, R.N.; and Acting-Paymaster Lieut.-Commander A. C. A. Janion, R.N. (Secretary). (See White Paper Cmd. 270.)

SUPPLIES (CONTRACTS).

Sir HENRY COWAN: 24.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in placing contracts for supplies, the Admiralty adheres to the principle re-affirmed by Resolution 3, Sub-section (2), of the recent Imperial Economic Conference?

Mr. AMMON: Yes, Sir.

GUNBOAT "GLOW-WORM."

Mr. MILLS: 25.
asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he has sanctioned the despatch of a relief crew to the gunboat "Glow-worm," chief ship of the Danube flotilla; and whether he will consider the recall of the whole flotilla?

Mr. AMMON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, the Danube flotilla has been withdrawn, with the exception of H.M.S. "Glow-worm."

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How long is it intended to keep the "Glow-worm" out there?

Mr. AMMON: As long as it continues to shine with any advantage.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the officers and crew of this vessel are getting no sea training at all?

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT POWERS (NAVAL STRENGTH).

Viscount CURZON: 18.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what are the designed speeds of the latest types of light cruisers in the United States of America, British, Japanese, French and Italian navies?

Mr. AMMON: As the reply is in tabular form, I will, with the Noble Lord's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The reply is as follows:


—
—
Designed Speed.


British Empire
…
…
Emerald Class (completing)
…
…
33 knots.





Hawkins Class
…
…
30 to 30.5 knots.


U.S.A.
…
…
Omaha Class
…
…
33 knots.


Japan
…
…
10,000 ton type
…
…
Not definitely known, but believed to be 32 knots.





7,100 ton type
…
…





Kuma Class
…
…
33 knots.





Yubari
…
…
33 knots.


France
…
…
Duguay-Trouin (building)
…
…
34 knots.





Metz (ex-enemy)
…
…
28 knots.


Italy
…
…
Marsala
…
…
28 knots.





Brindisi (ex-Austrian)
…
…
27 knots.

Viscount CURZON: 19.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many cruisers and submarines, respectively, have been added to the Navies of the United States of America, Japan, Great Britain, and France since 1914; what are the totals in each case on the

CRUISERS.


—
No. on 1st April, 1914.
No. completed since 1st April, 1914.
No. removed since 1st April, 1914.
No. on the effective list 12th Mar., 1924.
No. on the effective list 1st April, 1929.


Great Britain
115
53
120
48
32*


U.S.A.
32
7
10
22
29
10‡


7†


Japan
24
26
13
11
18
28
29
40


2†
10†
11†


France
30
34
5§
23
11
16
10
19‡


4†
5†
9†


SUBMARINES.


Great Britain
71
186
196
61
31*


U.S.A.
31
93
9
115
122


Japan
13
38
7
42
44
73
79


2║
6║


France
50
32
42
44
48
63
69¶


10§
6║


* This number does not include any vessels over 15 years' service in the case of light cruisers, or 10 years in the case of submarines, which it may be necessary to retain on the list for any special purpose. (In calculating the service of British light cruisers and submarines one year's war service counts as two years' normal service.)


† Over 20 years old.


‡ Plus such cruisers that may be authorised and completed.


6 (France) are now Projected but not authorised.


8 (U.S.A.) are now Projected but not authorised.


§ Ex-enemy handed over to France.


║ Over 15 years old.


¶ Plus such S/Ms. that may be authorised and completed.


39 (France) are projected but not authorised.

effective list of each country to-day; and what will be the position in 1929?

Mr. AMMON: As the reply is in tabular form, I will, with the Noble Lord's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Mr. STAMFORD: 23.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will furnish particulars showing the number of battleships, battle cruisers, cruisers, light cruisers, and submarines in the fleets of Great Britain, the United States of America, Japan, France and Italy, omitting obsolete ships, and distinguishing ships both built and building in all classes?

Mr. AMMON: As the reply is in tabular form, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The reply is as follows:


BUILT.


—
Battleships.
Battle Cruisers.
Cruisers and Lt. Cruisers.
Submarines.


British Empire.
18
4
48
61


U.S.A.
18
Nil
29
115


Japan
6
4
28
44


France
9
Nil
16
48


Italy
7
Nil
15
43


BUILDING.


British Empire.
2
Nil
4
7


U.S.A.
Nil
Nil
3
11


Japan
Nil
Nil
6*
15†


France
Nil
Nil
3
9‡


Italy
Nil
Nil
0§
0║


* 6 authorised but not yet laid down.


† 20 authorised but not yet laid down.


‡ 12 authorise I but not yet laid down.


§ 2 have been ordered and will be laid down shortly.


║ 4 authorised but not yet laid down.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

RELIEF WORK (PAY).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it is his intention that men employed on relief work at 75 per cent. trade union rates should not be paid for time they are stood off for no fault of their own, e.g., wet time; and if he is aware that certain local authorities only allow two hours wet time, and then only the first two hours if it is raining at the commencement of the work, and not if it starts raining half an hour or more after starting work?

Mr. SHAW: As regard the first part of the question, my hon. and gallant Friend will remember that on 27th February I explained, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), that the restriction regarding 75 per cent. of trade union rates no longer applied. Instructions on the point were issued by the Unemployment Grants Committee on the date mentioned. As regards the rest of the question, I understand that it is not the practice of the Unemployment Grants Committee to authorise payments for "wet time" in connection with State-aided relief works.

BENEFIT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that, in certain Employment Exchanges when insured persons are stood off benefits for six weeks on an accusation of not having sought genuinely for work or having refused suitable employment and being still unemployed, the Exchange starts counting unemployed time from the end of the six weeks, thus making seven weeks without benefit instead of six weeks; that, if the insured person had been signing for six days before being stood off, then this period is made into eight weeks; and whether this system has his approval?

Mr. SHAW: The position in cases such as those mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend is under consideration, and I will let him know the result as soon as possible.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 59.
asked the Minister of Labour by what date all benefits begin to be completely exhausted in the current benefit year under The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1923; and what number of insured persons it is estimated will have exhausted all benefit by that date if the present rate of unemployment continues?

Mr. SHAW: The first day on which benefit in the current benefit year may be exhausted is 16th April, for persons to whom the former "gap" of three weeks did not apply, and 7th May for others. If the hon. Member will renew his question in a fortnight's time I hope to be able to give him an estimate of the numbers likely to be affected.

Mr. THOMSON: As there is little more than a month before the first people become disqualified from further benefit,
will the right hon. Gentleman consider bringing in a Measure to extend the benefit, without waiting for the comprehensive Measure that he has promised?

Mr. SHAW: It is the desire of the Minister to introduce his comprehensive Measure soon. Failing the possibility of that, certainly, steps will be taken to introduce a stop-gap Measure.

Mr. MASTERMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman accelerate the information, as a fortnight is rather a long time to wait when within a month these benefits will lapse?

Mr. SHAW: I am afraid that the resources at my disposal will not give the answer to this question within the time I have stated.

Mr. SEXTON: 65.
asked the Minister of Labour if he has received any complaints from, the Mersey district or elsewhere of the refusal of officials of Employment Exchanges to pay unemployment benefit or to place to their credit any number of days for which the men were unemployed previous to the beginning of the late strike of dock labourers; what instructions, if any, were issued by the Department in connection with unemployment benefit; and if he will undertake to consider and investigate cases of the nature mentioned, where it is alleged that benefit has been refused and idle days not credited for the week preceding the strike?

Mr. SHAW: So far as I am aware the difficulty referred to in the question could only occur in regard to unemployment for one day or two days immediately prior to the dispute. The rules governing the matter are laid down in the Act, and no special instructions were issued, but I shall be glad to look into any particular case if desired.

Sir J. PENNEFATHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has, as suggested in the question, received a complaint from the Mersey district on this matter?

Mr. SHAW: I have heard a complaint from the Mersey district.

DOCK WORKERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the dissatisfaction felt by dock
workers at Hull and other ports at having to sign, as unemployed, twice instead of once daily; if he is aware that, because he must sign between the hours of 9 and 10 in the morning and between two and three in the afternoon, many a man may lose a tidal job, or, on the other hand, because he has waited for such a job or gone in search of it from one dock to another, he may miss the opportunity for signing, and so forfeit his benefit; if he is aware that, on account of the inconvenience involved, there are many hardworking men who never sign on as un employed; and whether he will consider reverting to the practice of signing only once daily and of stiffening up the penalty for men detected in fraud, or take other steps to remove this grievance?

Mr. GROVES: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will be prepared to consider the alteration of the Clause in the Unemployment Insurance Act which requires dock labourers to register twice per day at the Employment Exchange to prove unemployment on any one day?

Mr. SHAW: As there are usually two "calls" a day, the ordinary practice is to require dock workers claiming benefit to sign the unemployed register twice a day, once after each "call." The signing places are in the vicinity of the docks, and in a number of cases special huts have been provided for the purpose. In general, I think these arrangements ought to be maintained, but I am always ready to look into any particular cases of difficulty, and I am inquiring into the case of the tidal workers referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy).

Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that other casual workers at the docks, such as ship workers, are only asked to sign on twice a week, while the casual docker is expected to sign, and has to pay tram fares to and from his home, twice a day? Cannot some arrangement be made whereby the same principle shall apply to dock workers as to ship workers?

Mr. SHAW: The last part of the answer I have given to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) may be taken by the hon. Member for St. Helens
(Mr. Sexton). If he has any cases of special difficulty, or any other matters, I shall be very pleased to discuss them with him.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with me when he has come to a decision regarding the tidal workers?

Mr. SHAW: Yes, Sir, I will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member when I have been informed.

TRADE DISPUTES (DISQUALIFICATION).

Mr. SHORT: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has now received a Report from the Trade Disputes Disqualification Committee; if so, what is its nature; and will he publish a full and complete Report of the proceedings of the Committee?

Mr. SHAW: I have received the Report of this Committee, and, as it is quite short, I am circulating a copy in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It would not, I think, be in accordance with precedent, nor would it be desirable, to publish an account of the proceedings of the Committee other than the Report. No evidence was taken.

Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the employers, after a delay of some two to three years, have specifically stated that they are not prepared to agree to any conditions upon this matter?

Mr. SHAW: I can only say that I am circulating the Report, and that it is the only Report that has been made to me from the Committee.

Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that the only people who disagree are the employers, and not the workpeople's representatives? May I have an answer?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will see the Report.

Mr. SHORT: This matter has been going on for two or three years, and the Committee was appointed in accordance with the will of this House, but we are now told by the right hon. Gentleman that we are not to receive any information at all beyond the Report.

Following is the Report referred to:

Trade Dispute Disqualification Committee.

4th March, 1924.

"SIR,

I have the honour to submit the following Report:

The above Committee was appointed 'to examine the working of the Trade Dispute Disqualification for Unemployment Benefit as contained in Section 87 (1) of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and Section 8 (1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, and to consider whether any, and, if so, what modification should be made therein.'

The Committee have held many meetings and have given earnest and careful consideration to the matters referred to them. They regret, however, that they are unable to reach agreement as to whether any, and, if so, what modification should be made in the existing law. They have requested me, therefore, on their behalf, to report to you to that effect.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

(Sgd.) W. B. YATES (Chairman):"

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour if the dock workers in the Merseyside area who were employed for one or more days during the month prior to 16th February last have been disqualified for receipt of unemployment benefit under Section 8 (1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1923, in connection with the recent dockers' dispute, while similar workers who were totally unemployed in the same period have not been so disqualified; and, if so, will he state why this distinction is made?

Mr. SHAW: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) on 4th March, of which I am sending him a copy. The decision on points of this kind rests with the Umpire, and in accordance with the terms of the Act is final and conclusive.

UNCOVENANTED BENEFIT.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: 39 and 40.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he can state the estimated extra charge upon the fund consequent upon the issue by him of instructions that the non-statutory limitations upon the payment of uncovenanted unemployment benefit to ex-enemy and other aliens are to be abolished;
(2) whether he has issued an instruction to local committees that, in considering claims to uncovenanted unemployment benefit, they are, in the case of any person who satisfies the statutory conditions, to pay no regard to the applicant's private income or to the total income of the household of which the applicant is a member; and what is the estimated extra charge upon the fund involved by this instruction?

Mr. SHAW: The effect of the revised directions to local employment committees issued by me was fully explained in the Debate last Monday. The increased amount, of unemployment benefit which will in consequence be paid out of the Unemployment Fund in the period up to next October, is estimated at between £2,000,000 and £4,000,000, as stated by the Prime Minister in the House on 12th February. I am afraid I cannot give separate figures for the different classes of persons affected.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman has no exact data, but that he is merely making a shot at the amount, and that it might just as easily be £6,000,000 or £8,000,000?

Mr. SHAW: It means that the Government Actuary has been asked to make out an estimate, that I have to give his figures, and that, whatever the figures are, it must be remembered that the amounts paid will be paid from the Insurance Fund.

Mr. REMER: Will that increase the overdraft which the Government have at present?

Mr. SHAW: There is no estimate that anything of the kind will be done. As a matter of fact, in spite of the extensive unemployment, money was being paid off from the overdraft.

Mr. BETTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions that his own Order, and those of his predecessors relating to this matter, shall be placed in the Vote Office, so that Members can see them?

Mr. SHAW: I have not the slightest objection to taking that course.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I want to give the right hon. Gentleman fair notice, so that there can be no question of a snap Division. [Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Baronet desire to give notice to the House?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes. Sir. I desire to give the right hon. Gentleman and the House notice, in order that there may be no question afterwards of a snap Division, that at the first Parliamentary opportunity the House will be asked to condemn his action, which has the effect of making it possible for this benefit to be claimed by aliens.

Mr. JAMES GARDNER: 62.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will cause to be displayed in the Employment Exchanges large notices in simple language explaining the new provisions respecting the administration of uncovenanted benefit and the change in the law with regard to the gap, in order that workmen may know exactly what benefits they are entitled to and how they can obtain them?

Mr. SHAW: I doubt whether it is necessary to exhibit these notices as I believe the changes referred to are generally known.

Mr. GARDNER: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the workmen are not getting the information which will help them to realise what is the benefit to which they are entitled?

Mr. SHAW: If any information can be conveyed to me as to where workmen are suffering, or if any suggestion can be made for bringing nearer the time when the men will know exactly what the conditions are, I will consider the whole matter.

Mr. REMER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the cost of these proposals?

Mr. SHAW: As I have given an answer twice to-day, I think the third time would be superfluous.

SKILLED MEN.

Captain TERRELL: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the Government plans for the relief of unemployment, he can state the steps which are being specially taken to find work for
skilled men whose efficiency may otherwise deteriorate; and whether the Government possesses any detailed statistics showing the proportion of these men to the general number of unemployed?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, may I ask him what are the Government's plans for unemployment?

Mr. SHAW: The most effective way of setting skilled men to work at their own trades is by encouraging the general revival of trade, and the Government are devoting all possible attention to this. As regards relief works, the direct labour employed is in most cases unskilled, but encouragement is given to works which require material manufactured in depressed industries. Statistics showing the number of persons unemployed in each industry are published monthly in the "Labour Gazette," but it is scarcely practicable to distinguish accurately between skilled and unskilled and still less to separate out the skilled men whose efficiency is likely to deteriorate during unemployment.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not all this require capital?

Mr. SHAW: Yes. I am quite aware that it requires capital, and I hope to be able shortly to suggest to the Cabinet measures for taking steps to find the capital.

Mr. REMER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information to the House, of any kind, of any means by which the Government are attempting to revive industry in this country? [HON. MEMBERS: "Sixty hours a day."]

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (ATTENDANCE).

Mr. GROVES: 64.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will investigate the effect of compulsory daily attendance at Employment Exchanges for signature; and whether he will consider the possibility of the unemployed workpeople signing one week in the morning and the following week in the afternoon, thus giving additional chances of looking round for jobs in the morning, the most suitable time?

Mr. SHAW: The present practice at many Exchanges of requiring claimants
to attend at stated times has been adopted in order to prevent congestion and long waiting. The times fixed for individuals are changed periodically. The ordinary rule for normal times is that claimants may attend at any time between certain hours of the morning and afternoon, and at Exchanges where the numbers claiming are not too large this is the practice now.

Oral Answers to Questions — AWARDS TO INVENTORS.

Mr. REMER: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the delays in settling cases before the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors; whether he is aware that only five cases have been taken since November last; what is the size of the staff employed by the Government in this Department; whether he is aware that serious inconvenience and hardships are caused to inventors; and whether he will take steps to see that the work of this Department is speeded up?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in thinking that only five cases have been taken since November last. Since that date the Commission has heard and disposed of 16 cases, the hearing of one alone of which occupied six full days. The staff of the Commission consists of six persons, namely, the secretary, two clerks, two typists and one messenger. Mr. Justice Tomlin, who presides, is unable to spare more time from his judicial functions; and, in view of the importance and technical character of the cases which come before the Commission, and the large sums of public money which are involved, I do not think that any further action can be taken to expedite the work.

Mr. REMER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are cases in which inventors have had to file their petitions in bankruptcy owing to the delay in settling these claims, which causes great hardship, and will he see that they are expedited?

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, Sir, we are doing everything we can to hasten the matter. If the hon. Member will send me individual cases I will deal with them.

Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: How many cases are there still to dispose of?

Mr. GRAHAM: I could not tell the hon. Member without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.

Captain BOWYER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the urgency of helping pre-War pensioners, legislation will be introduced as soon as possible?

Mr. FOOT: 55.
asked the Prime Minister if he is in a position to state when the Bill dealing with pre-War pensioners will be introduced?

The PRIME MINISTER: This Bill is waiting for the general arrangement of business, for which the Government is but partly responsible.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

EVICTION ORDERS.

Mr. PALMER: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the distress obtaining in many parts of the country by the issue of orders for eviction of tenants under the 1923 Rent Restrictions Act; and if he is in a position to state the Government policy in the matter?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Wheatley): I have been asked to reply. I am aware that there are a number of cases of eviction under the Rent Restrictions Act of last year. The Government are generally in favour of the Bill which is now before a Standing Committee, and their future action will depend upon the progress made by that Bill and the form in which it emerges from the Committee.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does that mean that unless this Bill has favourable progress the Government is going to allow evictions to continue?

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: As the right hon. Gentleman states that the Government is in favour of the Bill, why does he not come down and assist the Committee?

Mr. WHEATLEY: Because there are many things that the Government favour which are not Government business.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I received no reply to my question.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I want to assure the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs that the Government will do everything the law permits it to do to prevent evictions.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Are we to understand that it is to be the policy of the Government for a responsible Minister to come down to the House and support a Bill and then leave it unattended in Committee?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I assume it is an honoured custom in this House that on a Private Member's Bill a Member may exercise his privilege as a Member of the House in supporting a Bill, and when the Bill was before the House I did so. In addition, I intimated that the Government were generally in favour of the principle of the Bill and hoped it would get a Second Reading.

Mr. HUDSON: Is my right hon. Friend I aware that in one of the Yorkshire county courts a decision has already been given to adjourn all cases for possession of homes, and under the circumstances is he prepared to suggest that that might: become a universal rule?

Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he is merely following a precedent set by the President of the Board of Agriculture in the last Government in relation to the Merchandise Marks Bill?

Sir G. DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state why he and the Attorney-General retired from the Committee?

PRE-WAR RENTALS.

Mr. RAFFETY: 63.
asked the Minister of Labour in what proportions the various pre-War rentals shown in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for December, 1923, are combined to arrive at the average increase of 47 per cent.?

Mr. SHAW: As statistics are not available showing the numbers of houses at each of the different pre-War rentals, the figures relating to various groups of typical rentals are combined in equal proportions in computing the average permissible increases for London (45 per cent.), other towns in England and Wales (51 per cent.), and Scotland (57 per cent.). These three figures are then combined
in proportions corresponding with relative population in order to obtain the average permissible increase (49 per cent.) and this figure is reduced to 47 per cent. by making allowance for those cases in which the full permissible increase has not been imposed.

DENSITY PER ACRE.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 66.
asked the Minister of Health if, in view of his decision to require local authorities in future to obtain his consent before granting subsidies to houses of a greater density than 20 per acre, he will state what steps he is taking to withdraw or amend paragraph 8 of the appendix of Circular 388a, dated 14th August, 1923; and what fresh instructions he is issuing to local authorities to carry out this change in policy?

Mr. WHEATLEY: As I informed the hon. Member, in reply to a similar question on the 27th ultimo, I propose, in connection with future approvals of housing schemes submitted by local authorities, to require the authorities to submit to me any proposals for building at a density exceeding 20 to the acre.

Mr. THOMSON: How is the right hon. Gentleman going to require the local authorities to do this, and will he withdraw Circular 388a?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The hon. Member will not quarrel with how I do it, provided I do it effectively and quickly.

RENTS.

Mr. BAKER: 68.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the issue of a statement of the average rents sanctioned by the Rents Tribunal for State-assisted houses in each of the principal towns and rural areas; and to what extent, in order to make it possible for them to be inhabited by the working classes, these have been reduced as wages have fallen?

Mr. WHEATLEY: Rents are decided by the Rents Tribunal only in cases in which a difference of opinion has arisen between the local authority and the Minister as to the sufficiency of the rents charged for houses erected under the 1919 assisted housing scheme. It is open to a local authority to refer their case again to the Tribunal, in respect of any later period,
if necessity arises. I will forward the hon. Member a statement of the decisions of the Tribunal in a few days.

RURAL AREAS.

Mr. F. GOULD: 69.
asked the Minister of Health if he will give the number of houses needed in rural and semi-rural areas, separately, in England, Scotland, and Wales, as estimated by the D 89 Returns made under the Addison building scheme?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I regret that the information, in the precise form desired by the hon. Member, is not available, but according to the returns in question, which were obtained from local authorities in 1919, the number of houses stated to be required during the subsequent three years in the areas of rural district councils to meet unsatisfied demands was for England 71,727, and for Wales 11,932. As regards Scotland, I would suggest that the hon. Member should address a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland.

Mr. MASTERMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether that is an increase or a decrease in the four years, and can he give us the figure up to date for 1924?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have not the information asked for in the supplementary question.

Mr. F. GOULD: Does the number mentioned take into account the derelict houses, that is, the houses that have been reported as defective?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am inclined to think that it does.

Mr. E. BROWN: 90.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in connection with the housing proposals of the Government, attention will be paid to rural areas; and if his Department is prepared to investigate and consider representations from areas requiring a few cottages?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The question of housing in rural areas is being considered in connection with the general proposals of the Government for dealing with the housing question. Under the Housing, Etc. Act, 1923, I have already authorised the erection of 22,940 houses in rural districts, and my Department is prepared to consider any further proposals for the erection of cottages in such areas.

Mr. REMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when these proposals will be introduced?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I do not think that the House need anticipate any great delay.

Mr. E. BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many villages where a comprehensive scheme is not wanted, but a few cottages are very badly wanted?

Mr. WHEATLEY: Yes, I have no doubt that the Government will take the wants of such districts into account.

SOMERSET.

Mr. F. GOULD: 70.
asked the Minister of Heatlh if he will give the number of houses needed in rural and agricultural areas in the county of Somerset, as estimated by the D 89 Returns made under the Addison building scheme?

Mr. WHEATLEY: According to the returns in question, which were obtained from local authorities in 1919, 1,548 houses were stated to be required during the three subsequent years in the areas of rural district councils in the county of Somerset to meet unsatisfied demands.

Mr. F. GOULD: 71.
asked the Minister of Health if he will give the number of houses built in the rural and agricultural areas of Somerset under the Addison Act, and the number now sanctioned under the 1923 Act?

Mr. WHEATLEY: Under the Housing, Town Planning, Etc., Act, 1919, 977 houses were, erected in the areas of rural district councils in the county of Somerset by local authorities and 202 by private builders under the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919. 278 houses are included in schemes of rural district councils in the county in question which have been authorised to date.

Mr. REMER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the cost of these houses?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have not got that information.

BUILDING MATERIALS.

Mr. GEORGE OLIVER: 73.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the setting up of a costing committee for the purpose of controlling
the price of building material, so that the rents of new houses will be as low as possible?

Mr. WHEATLEY: This is one of the questions which are engaging my serious attention. It will be dealt with in the proposals I hope to submit to Parliament in due course.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Was not a Committee set up by the last Government, and is it not still functioning?

Mr. WHEATLEY: Yes, the Committee is still functioning as successfully as ever.

Mr. REMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether his proposals will be put forward within one week or one month?

SALE TO OCCUPIERS (HEREFORD).

Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: 74.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in the scheme for the sale of corporation houses at Hereford to the occupiers a minimum deposit of £50 has been demanded and the rate of interest placed at 5½ per cent.; and whether he can see his way to reduce the deposit and/or the rate of interest?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am in communication with the city council in this matter and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

Mr. ROBERTS: Is it the policy of the right hon. Gentleman to encourage the sale to the occupiers of these houses built under the Addison scheme?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I require to consider every application on its merits.

FAMILY INCOME.

Mr. G. WARD: 75.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Housing Bill he proposes to introduce is intended to meet the need of families with an income not exceeding £3 per week; and, if so, if he will say whether the subsidy under the Bill of 1923 will be continued to meet the needs of families with incomes in excess of £3?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am unable to make any statement on the point raised by the hon. Member in anticipation of the submission to this House of the Government's proposals in respect of housing.

SMALL WORKSHOPS.

Mr. PERCY HARRIS: 83.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider including small workshops in the new Rents Bill, as many occupiers of such are receiving notice to quit or are having their rents raised by 100 per cent. or over?

Mr. WHEATLEY: If the hon. Member raises this point it will no doubt be considered by the Committee to which the Bill in question has been referred.

Mr. HARRIS: May I rely on the right hon. Gentleman to support this suggestion?

Mr. WHEATLEY: If it be necessary for the Government to introduce a Measure of its own, the hon. Member may rely on my considering the suggestions contained in this question.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Will the Government say whether the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health for Scotland, who sits on this Committee, is there to represent the Government or is there representing his own personal views?

BRICKS.

Mr. LUMLEY: 85.
asked the Minister of Health what is the annual output of bricks in this country; and what number of bricks would be required to build 200,000 houses?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The present output of bricks is variously estimated at between 2,500,000,000 and 4,000,000,000 a year. Taking 20,000 as the average number of bricks per house, a total of 4,000,000,000 bricks would be required for 200,000 houses.

Mr. LUMLEY: What materials does the right hon. Gentleman propose to use for building the vast number of houses that are required?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I intend to use all the materials available.

SUBSIDY.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 86.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that a number of housing schemes by public utility societies and private builders have been suspended owing to uncertainty as to whether they will rank for assistance
under the Government's proposed Housing Bill; and if he can state that the Bill will apply retrospectively, as was the case with the Government's proposals last year, and thereby remove the check on the provision of working-class dwellings?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am unable to make any statement on the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member in anticipation of the submission to this House of the Government's proposals in respect of housing.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Are not the Government taking into consideration the fact, as the Government last year did, that this long gap left over is delaying the building of houses, and will the right hon. Gentleman give the same assurance as was given by the right hon. Gentleman last year?

Mr. WHEATLEY: We take all these things into consideration.

STONE AND SWANSCOMBE SCHEME.

Mr. MILLS: 87.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the new houses built during 1922–23 by the Stone and Swanscombe Council have had to be provided with cesspool drainage at considerable cost as a result of the delay in sanctioning the sewer outfall; and whether he will favourably consider the remittance of these charges?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The hon. Member appears to be under some misapprehension in this matter. These houses were provided with a system of cesspool drainage, the cost of which has been charged to the Housing Assisted Scheme and will be borne by the Exchequer. I understand that the work of sewer construction was put in hand to provide work for the unemployed, and that the ordinary unemployment grant has been sanctioned by the Unemployment Grants Committee.

Mr. MILLS: Is the Minister aware that the real point of the question is that an outfall scheme has not yet been sanctioned, and that, consequently, cesspool drainage has had to be provided for these houses?

Mr. WHEATLEY: If the hon. Member will place the facts and details before me, I will give him all the information at my disposal.

RENTALS.

Captain TERRELL: 92.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the official announcement that the average rent of houses erected under the Government scheme will be 9s. a week, he can state what is the estimated average of the rent of purely agricultural houses, indicating the maximum and minimum figure which may have been agreed on to produce the 9s. average for the whole country?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I would suggest that the hon. and gallant Member should reserve his point until I am in a position to make an announcement to this House of the details of the Government's housing proposals.

Captain TERRELL: How did the Government arrive at the average rent of 9s., and what rental are they going to charge in agricultural districts?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The Government was only expressing a desire.

Captain TERRELL: Is the House to take it that the rent in agricultural districts will not be as high as 9s. a week?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am very hopeful that it will not be as high as 9s.

OCCUPYING OWNERS.

Sir G. DOYLE: 93.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons in the United Kingdom who own one house, and the number who reside in the same; how many such houses have been obtained through building societies or other thrift agencies; how many persons own two or three houses each; and whether the tendency towards such small ownership is most marked in large boroughs and cities or in small towns and rural areas?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I regret that the information desired by the hon. Member is not available.

Sir G. DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain the information?

Mr. WHEATLEY: Obviously, if it is not available, I cannot obtain it.

Oral Answers to Questions — CALIPH ABDUL MEJID.

Lord COLUM CRICHTON-STUART: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether His
Majesty's Government will, in view of the great number of His Majesty's Mahommedan subjects, offer to the Caliph Abdul Mejid a residence and refuge within the borders of the Empire?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford on the 10th March, which, for the time being, must be held to apply to all questions arising out of the decision of the Turkish Government regarding the Caliphate.

Captain EDEN: Will the right hon Member bear in mind that the offer of such an asylum would be a most effective reply to previous anti-British agitation on the subject?

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNICIPAL BANKING.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government proposes to introduce legislation to enable municipal banking to be carried on?

The PRIME MINISTER: The matter has not been considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action fixed any date as a time limit for the reception of belated claims for compensation; if so, will he state what the date was; and whether he will state the total numbers of claims, both successful and unsuccessful, from persons resident in East Kent, considered by the Royal Commission?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I have been asked to reply. The Royal Commission fixed the 15th February, 1922, as the latest date for receiving claims, and this was extended to 30th December, 1922, in respect of certain special claims. No special date was fixed for belated claims. As regards the third part of the question, I would refer to the answer I gave the hon. Member on Monday.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: As no date was fixed for belated claims, do the Government intend to fix a date?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The Government have not fixed a date for them to be received, but that will be considered now.

Mr. MILLS: Have claims been put in by men of the mercantile marine who have no proof that their claims have been received, and are they now being treated as belated claims and will they be considered also?

Mr. ALEXANDER: As far as I know, all claims received by the Department have been duly acknowledged. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is my information. If that is not so, I should like to have notice.

Sir J. PENNEFATHER: Have any belated claims sent in by seamen been passed by the Commission, and, if so, will they be paid soon?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I understand a small number of special cases have been dealt with under the heading of belated claims. So far as I know, payment will be made at an early date.

Colonel GRETTON: Will belated claims be considered as assessed?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The matter is dealt with in the General Report of the Commission. The Government have the matter under immediate consideration, and a statement will be made at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF LORDS.

Sir G. DOYLE: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to undertake the reform of the Upper House; and, if so, when?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 18th February in reply to a question on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull.

Sir G. DOYLE: Is any action contemplated during this Session?

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. H. SIMPSON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation at an early date to render it compulsory on all employers to insure against liability under the Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923, and so to carry out the recommendation of the Holman Gregory Departmental Committee's Report (Cd. 816)?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Rhys Davies): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I am in sympathy with the principle of compulsory insurance in workmen's compensation, and I should be glad if it were possible to give effect to it. Any detailed scheme, however, would require a large amount of time both for preparation and discussion, and I am afraid it is impossible for mo, in view of the pressure of the Sessional programme, to give any promise of early legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of appointing a non-party Committee to investigate whether the legislative methods sanctioned in any other country for lessening or averting industrial trouble are worthy of consideration and possible adoption in our own?

The PRIME MINISTER: The experience of other countries was taken into account when the Industrial Courts Act was under consideration in 1919. Since then nothing specially new has arisen to justify the appointment of a Committee such as proposed.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: In view of the absolute failure of the Government to avoid strikes, can further steps be taken?

Dr. CHAPPLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Act of 1919 is not very largely inoperative because of the necessity of both parties agreeing to accept the Court and to abide by its decision?

Mr. SPEAKER: We must not debate the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — RURAL WORKERS (WAGES AND CONDITIONS)

Mr. E. BROWN: 58.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the need for accurate information about rural conditions of labour, he will give consideration to the inclusion of statistics relating to rural workers in the periodic statements of the Ministry as to changes in wage rates and conditions of living?

Mr. SHAW: I regret that the information is insufficient to provide a satisfactory basis for statistics as to the aggregate amount of the changes in rates of wages of rural workers or as to their conditions of living. Details of such changes as are reported in recognised district rates of wages, however, are published regularly in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" as well as statistics relating to changes in food prices in certain towns with populations under 50,000, including a considerable number of small country towns.

Mr. BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great discrepancy of view in regard to the wages in rural areas, and that it will be impossible for hon. Members properly to discuss this matter unless scientific information is supplied?

Mr. SHAW: I am quite aware of dissatisfaction, and I beg to call attention to the fact that the lack of statistics is not due to the present Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — NURSES (REGISTRATION).

Dr. CHAPPLE: 67.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has yet had an opportunity of consulting the Law Officers of the Crown upon the question of the rejection by the Nursing Council of applicants for admission to the nursing register under the rule passed on 7th July, 1923?

Mr. WHEATLEY: No, Sir, but I will do so in the near future.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR AMBULANCE (SHOREDITCH).

Mr. THURTLE: 72.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the renewed request made to him by the Shoreditch Board of Guardians, he will now consider the advisability of authorising that board to purchase a motor ambulance for the removal of sick patients?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The renewed application is not supported by any fresh argument or information, and accordingly there would appear to be no reason for altering the previous decision.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this want of a proper motor ambulance is causing serious inconvenience and exposing sick patients to unnecessary danger?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The hon. Member, I am sure, will appreciate the difficulty which I should have had I to revise every decision of my predecessor, without any additional evidence.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. GROVES: 76.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that when sick persons are admitted to the West Ham Poor Law Hospital their old age pension book is taken from them, retained by the relieving officer, and such amounts of money as may be due to the sick person in such respect taken, without consent of the persons, as part cost of the patient's maintenance; and whether he will issue instructions to cease such practice?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have made inquiries in regard to this question, and I am informed that the written authority of the pensioners is always obtained before old age pension money is drawn on their behalf by officers of the board of guardians, and that no coercion whatever is used to obtain the pensioner's consent. There appears to be, therefore, no ground for my intervention.

Mr. SHORT: Will the right hon. Gentleman satisfy himself that there is no coercion?

Mr. WHEATLEY: If any hon. Member will submit evidence to me, I will investigate the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOGNOR CEMETERY DEAINAGE.

Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: 77.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Bognor cemetery drainage is being carried out as unemployment relief work for which a grant is being made to the burial board; if so, on what basis is the supervisor paid; and has that basis been approved by the Ministry?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is "No"; the other parts, therefore, do not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (MEDICAL SERVICE).

Sir K. WOOD: 78.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to bring forward his proposals relating to the increased payment proposed to medical men on the panel lists?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The matter referred to by the hon. Member is still under consideration and I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject.

Sir K. WOOD: Will my right hon. Friend, when he brings forward his proposals, have regard to the proposals made by himself and his colleague in relation to this matter?

Mr. WHEATLEY: In framing my proposals, I never forget any pledge which I gave.

Oral Answers to Questions — POPLAR BOARD OF GUARDIANS (AUDIT).

Sir K. WOOD: 79.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can state whether the district auditor who is now examining the accounts of the Poplar Board of Guardians is proceeding under the Mond Order; and when the audit will be complete?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The question of what disallowances or surcharges may or may not be necessary is a matter for decision by the district auditor on his own responsibility. In the performance of his statutory functions he is not subject to any directions from me. As regards the latter part of the question, I understand that the audits of the accounts up to September, 1922, will probably be closed before Easter of this year.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman urging the auditor to complete his work? Does he not remember his criticism of his predecessor for not bringing pressure to bear on the auditor?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I take it that sufficient publicity has been given to my criticism to inform the auditor that he is expected to complete his audit.

Oral Answers to Questions — VACCINATION.

Mr. BLACK: 84.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the success
of the policy of isolation and sanitation in dealing with the disease of small-pox, as well as taking into consideration the irritation of large numbers of the population, accompanied by serious inconvenience and lose of time, caused by their having to secure exemption from vaccination by affirming their conscientious objection to the practice before a justice of the peace, he will alter his decision and bring in a Bill to relieve the situation?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am unable at present to add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on this subject on the 27th February.

Mr. BLACK: Would it be in order for mc to give notice to call attention to the unsatisfactory administration of the Vaccination Act to-morrow night on the Adjournment?

Mr. SPEAKER: There is one other notice in front of that of the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — DANGEROUS BUILDINGS (DEMOLITION).

Mr. VIVIAN: 94.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can see his way to take the necessary steps to secure that the present powers conferred on local authorities to enforce the demolition of dangerous buildings should be extended to include unsightly buildings which have fallen into decay and which constitute an annoyance to the neighbourhood, and that powers should be conferred enabling such buildings to be reduced to the ground level or to have the same effectively screened to the satisfaction of the local authority?

Mr. WHEATLEY: A note will be taken of the hon. Member's suggestion, but I cannot promise to introduce legislation at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN (POOR LAW RELIEF).

Mr. PALMER: 95.
asked the Minister of Health what steps, if any, he proposes to take to relieve destitute ex-servicemen; and whether he can promise to take such steps as will obviate such ex-service men having to appeal for Poor Law assistance?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I do not think it would be practicable to deal with this matter in the particular manner suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. PALMER: 96.
asked the Minister of Health if he will immediately collect and prepare for early presentation to the Members of the House of Commons the number of ex-service men, with their dependants, in receipt of out-relief; the number resident in workhouses; and the number chargeable to local rates in kindly institutions?

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 99.
asked the Minister of Health what is the number of ex-service men and dependants, respectively, receiving out-door relief in the United Kingdom; and what number of the same men and their dependants, respectively, are resident in workhouses or chargeable to local rates from being in mental institutions?

Mr. BARNES: 100.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will grant a return showing the number of ex-service men with their dependants receiving out-relief; those resident in workhouses; and those charged to local rates who are in mental institutions?

Mr. EGAN: 107.
asked the Minister of Health the number of ex-service men with their dependants receiving out-relief; the number of ex-service men resident in workhouses; and the number of men charged to local rates who are resident in mental institutions?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I will answer these questions together. I regret that the information asked for is not available, and as regards the suggestion that a Return should be called for, I would refer to the answer which I gave last Wednesday in reply to the hon. Member for East Newcastle-on-Tyne.

Mr. PALMER: Can we have some assurance that these figures will be supplied to the House?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I would have the greatest readiness to supply the figures, but evidently they have not been provided.

Mr. MASTERMAN: Surely such knowledge is essential for the consideration of this problem. May we ask the right hon. Gentleman to obtain the information, which can be obtained?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I will promise the House that I will do my best to obtain the information, but, obviously, I am not responsible for the state of affairs.

Captain Viscount EDNAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the present moment there is a large number of ex-service men who reached the highest positions in the non-commissioned ranks and who are destitute?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I would not be at all surprised to learn that that is true, but I have no official information of it.

Mr. REMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman get the information?

NOTICES OF MOTION.

POSTAL SERVICE (STOPPAGE).

On this day fortnight, to call attention to a recent Stoppage in the Postal Service, and to move a Resolution.—[Lieut.-Colonel James.]

MOTOR TYRE TRADE.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the Motor Tyre Trade, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Sandeman.]

COLLIEEIES (BATHS).

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the failure of colliery companies to provide an adequate number of Baths at Pit-heads, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. T. Williams.]

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS.

Mr. FOOT: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the operation of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, in respect of animals kept in captivity or confinement and released for the purpose of being hunted or coursed.
This is a Bill which will bring about, I hope, a very urgent improvement in the existing law in relation to the protection of animals. The Protection of Animals Act of 1911 is the standard Act of Parliament bearing upon this important matter, and it is one which expressly exempted from its penalties the coursing or hunting of any captive animal, unless such animal is liberated in an injured, mutilated or exhausted
condition. That Act was followed by an amending Act passed in the year 1921, and in this short amending Act of 1921 there was a provision which made illegal the coursing or hunting of an animal in an enclosed space from which it has no reasonable chance of escape. This provision that was made by Parliament in 1921 for the protection of defenceless animals has proved to be almost altogether inadequate, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is interested in the passage of the Measure which I ask leave to introduce.
The Royal Society has been hampered in its beneficent work by the interpretation placed upon the Act of 1921. They find that prosecutions which appear to be very necessary often prove futile, and I shall call the attention of the House to a case which arose in my own town of Plymouth in the year 1922, illustrating the difficulties of the society. On the 15th February of that year 200 people were present at what was called rabbit coursing. There were 44 dogs upon the field and 43 rabbits were coursed. Out of the 43 not one escaped. The evidence showed that sometimes a rabbit had to by "touched up" to make it run at all, and that in several cases two dogs got one rabbit at the same time, with the result that there was a tug-of-war. Bookmakers were present, and their operations, no doubt added to the pleasantries of this festive afternoon, but after all this evidence had been given the magistrates felt compelled to dismiss the summons, because they thought there was a doubt as to whether the rabbits had a reasonable chance of escape. This took place in Plymouth, but I believe that if hon. Members who are interested in the matter make inquiries, they will find the same difficulties arise in other parts of the country. I prefer to speak of cases of which I have some personal knowledge.
One difficulty which has arisen is that by the interpretation placed upon the Act of 1921, the words, "a reasonable chance of escape," are taken to refer not to escape from the dogs, but to escape from the enclosed space where the animals have been coursed. It reminds one of the saying that an Act of Parliament has no sense of its own, but only the sense which is put into it, and that
that is precious little sometimes. With the comparative failure of the Act of 1921, rabbit coursing with all its attendant barbarities, has been developing in every part of the country, and many hon. Members have had their attention drawn to the fact that it has been extending on a very wide scale in the neighbourhood of London and in the Southern counties. The Bill which I have the honour to submit seeks to repeal the Act of 1921, and to establish one simple principle. It will impose penalties on the hunting or coursing of any animal which has been kept in captivity or confinement for the purpose of being coursed or hunted, and Clause 3 provides that the penalty shall not apply to the hunting or coursing of any animal which has been kept in confinement, if it be proved that such animal has been released from such confinement at least eight days before the day on which such hunting or coursing takes place. I ask the attention of hon. Members to the fact that this Bill applies not only to the coursing of rabbits, but to the hunting of carted stags. [Interruption.] It is the purpose of the Society to deal just as effectively with the hunting of the carted stag as with the coursing of rabbits. From the interruptions I gather that the criticism made against this Bill is that it does not go far enough. If hon. Members assist me in the passing of a Bill which deals with this particular evil, I shall be very glad to co-operate with them in any Measure which seeks to put an end to all
detested sport Which finds its pleasures in another's pain.
May I further point out that a Bill came before this House in 1906 almost in this form, and upon the back of that Bill was the name of the present Prime Minister?
The law as it stands now is in a most anomalous condition. Nearly 100 years ago a law was passed to stop the baiting of animals, but it was decided in 1874 by the Judges of the High Court that the term "baiting" could not apply in the case of a rabbit, but only where the animal was attacked with violence and where it had the power to protect itself. We are therefore left in this position, that the bear or the badger or the rat, or any animal which can defend itself is protected by the law, but the rabbit which is defenceless against its natural enemies has no real protection from the law at all.
I do not think that Members of this House will be inclined to resist this Bill on the ground that it interferes with sport. To use the term "sport" in this connection is an abuse of language. I am desirous, if I can—and I have associated with me members of all parties in the House—to put an end to spectacles of the kind I have mentioned organised for gain, which would probably not continue at all were it not for the presence of the bookmakers. The Press has been interested in this matter, notably the "Daily News" and the "Daily Mirror" and other sections of the Press as well, and I think some hon. Members have had before them details of the sickening cruelty which is carried on. I do not understand the mind of anyone who can read those details without a feeling of indignation against those responsible. We should have less anger if we heard that those who organised these so-called sporting spectacles for what is virtually blood money had themselves been horsewhipped, or that a few bookmakers had been shot. There is reason for amazement as well as anger that while we pride ourselves on having got rid of cock fighting and bear baiting a century ago and condemn the bull fights of Spain, we should allow this kind of thing to continue. All parties are giving support of this Bill, which has also the backing of the Royal Society. I was a little disappointed that the Government in answer to my question last week could not give any assurance of support, but I hope there will be such an endorsement of this proposal in all parts of the House, that this simple Bill may be carried into law. I recognise that there are other sports which ought to be dealt with, but I hope that will not interfere with the passing of this particular Measure. I believe the real remedy is
Never to blend our pleasure or our pride
With sorrow of the meanest thing that feels.
If it be said that I am appealing to sentiment, I am glad I am able to invoke in support of this proposal the expressions of such men as Robert Burns, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Browning and Thomas Hardy. With such support and with these names I submit the Bill to the House.

Mr. G. A. SPENCER: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member rise to oppose the Bill?

Mr. SPENCER: I do, Sir, and I do so, not because I am in any sense antagonistic to the principle underlying the Bill, but for the simple reason that the Bill in itself does not go far enough, and draws a distinction between the sport which is pursued by the working man and the sport which is pursued by rich people. Let us see upon what ground the hon. Member who submitted this Bill distinguishes between the sport of the working man who courses rabbits and the sport of other people who course hares. As far as I can gather an animal which has been caged for a certain period is not, under this Bill, to be pursued by dogs. Does the cruelty then depend upon the fact of the animal having been caged? No, the cruelty begins, in the case of any animal, as soon as the animal senses danger and feels that the dogs are after it. That is where the real cruelty begins. The animal's terror starts at the instant it senses the danger, and that cruelty begins, in the case of the hare, at that point just as it begins in the case of the rabbit at that point. Cruelty is involved when dogs begin to chase a hare, or a fox or a stag. If the hon. Member desires to go into all forms of cruelty he will find that some of us are quite willing to support him, but we cannot do so if he proposes to deal with only I one form of cruelty, knowing perfectly well that, if he includes the others in his Bill, those who have promised to support him as regards the rabbit coursing will withdraw their support and will oppose a measure applied to hares and foxes also. While I would readily support a Bill which had for its object the stopping of the coursing of hares, of fox hunting or deer stalking, I will be no party to the passing of a little Bill of this description which is simply playing into the hands of a large section of this House at the expense of the very few people in this country who do these things to which the hon. Member referred. I would vote to-morrow to putting them all to an end, but I will be no party to discriminating on the lines of the Bill.

Viscountess ASTOR: You are frightened of the miners.

Mr. WESTWOOD: The sport of the miners is better than the sport of your class. Do not you insult the working-class?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not remain standing when I am on my feet.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I did not intend to do that, but I cannot help protesting when I hear these insults.

Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member be good enough to address the Chair. Then, I am sure, he will not make remarks of that sort when I am standing.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Foot, Mr. Edmund Harvey, Mr. Hobhouse, Miss Jewson, Mr. Lansbury, Sir Robert Newman, Mr. Pethick-Lawrence, Sir Philip Richardson, Sir Leslie Scott, Mr. Scrymgeour, Mr. Vivian, and Mrs. Wintringham.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL,

"to extend the operation of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, in respect of animals kept in captivity or confinement and released for the purpose of being hunted or coursed," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 26th March, and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

POST OFFICE (LONDON) RAILWAY BILL.

Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Post Office (London) Railway Bill with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP A).

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills; That the parties opposing the Birkenhead Corporation (Ferries) Bill had stated that the evidence of Claude Crosland Taylor, of Crane House, Chester, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Claude Crosland Taylor do attend the said Committee this day, at Three of the Clock.

Ordered, That Claude Crosland Taylor do attend the Committee on Group A of Private Bills this day, at Three of the Clock.

QUEEN'S FERRY BRIDGE BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.

The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS reported, That, after conferring with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Bills under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, should be first considered, they had determined that the following Bills should originate in the House of Lords, namely:

Clyde Valley Electrical Power Bill.

Lanarkshire Hydro-Electric Power Bill.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Major Colfox and Major Kindersley.

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

Sittings of Parliament,—That they concur in the Resolution communicated by this House: "That it is expedient that a Select Committee of the Commons be appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords to consider the desirability of altering the customary period of the Parliamentary Session and the incidental changes necessary thereto."

Indian Affairs,—The Lords communicate that they have come to the following Resolution, namely: "That it is desirable that a Standing Joint Committee on
Indian Affairs of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to examine and report on any Bill or matter referred to them specifically by either House of Parliament, and to consider, with a view to reporting, if necessary, thereon any matter relating to Indian Affairs brought to the notice of the Committee by the Secretary of State for India."

Orders of the Day — TRADE FACILITIES BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Increase of amount of loans which may be guaranteed under 11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 65, and extension of period for giving of guarantees.)

"(1) The maximum limit on the aggregate capital amount of the loans, the principal or interest of which may be guaranteed under Sub-section (1) of Section one of the Trade Facilities Act, 1921, as amended by the Trade Facilities and Loans Guarantee Act, 1922 (Session 2), shall be increased from fifty million pounds to sixty-five million pounds.
(2) The power to give guarantees under the said Section one may be exercised at any time up to and including the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-five."

Mr. MOND: I beg to move, in Sub section (1), after the word "pounds" ["sixty-five million pounds"], to insert the words
and of this amount guarantees to the extent of ten million pounds shall be allocated exclusively to capital undertakings for agricultural districts such as light railways, reclamation of land, drainage, co-operative storage facilities, depots, co-operative factories, roads, and such other agricultural purposes as shall be determined.
I think the Government, on looking at the various Amendments on the Paper, might well say, with Hamlet:
To be or not to be"—
and then conclude the quotation with the words
By opposing end them.
We have brought this Amendment before the Committee because, up to the present, the only promises which have been made for agriculture by the Minister of Agriculture amount to some £200,000, for credit societies, which is quite inadequate to make any material difference to the position of agriculture as we know it today. The Government have promised us wages boards, but wages boards are quite useless if they do not provide 30s. per week for the agricultural labourer. It is impossible for the industry to pay this wage unless the Government take definite steps to assist the industry as a whole and
to make it possible for the employer to pay this increased wage. In a great many districts wages could be higher without any real assistance from the Government, but there are many districts where, without the carrying out of the programme which the Prime Minister placed before us at the beginning of the Session, it would be extremely difficult for the farmer to pay an adequate wage and for the industry to be placed in a reasonable position at all.
There are only two Measures which really benefit the farmer in any way. One is the proposal which the Minister for Agriculture has already adumbrated in this House, and the other is the Agricultural Credits Act which, up to the present, has dealt with only some seven teen cases amounting to £39,000, which is quite insufficient to make any material difference, and which has 272 cases amounting to some £1,141,000 under consideration. That shows that something can be done if energy and real direction is put behind it from the top, and if real opportunities are given to the agricultural community to benefit from State aid. The Agricultural Credits Act only provides for special cases of credit societies, and there are many restrictions. It in no way covers the same ground as the Trade Facilities Act. The Minister has told us—and the House at the time agreed with him—that, apart from these Acts, trade facilities offer the one hope to which agriculture can turn for assistance in the future and during the course of the present Parliament.
Agriculture has no prospect at all of obtaining the necessary help and the necessary facilities if it is put into competition with other industries. The industrial man, obviously, can present a very much better case to the Board of the Treasury appointed under the Trade Facilities Act for credit facilities than the agriculturist. You cannot fairly consider them in competition with one another and under the same auspices. You must distinguish between the two if agriculture is really to benefit at all. If there be no distinction made between trade facilities for agriculture and trade facilities for other industries, the suggestion which has been put forward by the Minister of Agriculture for helping agriculture is really not in any way adequate but quite useless, and in some
ways avoids the question which has been pressed by agriculturists and by all parties in the House. Two hundred thousand pounds will not help us at all. It is essential that we should have something more. The only thing that we have had offered us is the Trade Facilities Act, and we must have a proper allocation of the facilities to be given to agriculture under that Act. Otherwise, agriculture will never benefit under it in any way at all.
I do not intend to go in any great detail into the manners in which the Trade Facilities Act can be used. Those ways are so well known as to be almost hackneyed, and in many respects the bringing of them forward again in this House would be almost like leading once more the forlorn hope of agriculture against the numerous city and industrial Members in this House. This is a point which should appeal both to industrial and agricultural Members. We are not asking for any immediate cash or any new money. We are merely asking the State to extend to us the same facilities which the State is prepared to extend to the big shipping companies and large industrial companies, which have already benefited to the extent of nearly £50,000,000 under this Act.
There are several things which will have to be taken up by farmers in this country if they are going to put their house in order and get their industry on a competitive basis with agriculture in other parts of the world. We have heard a great deal about Danish farming, and some hon. Members seem to consider that it is a really mysterious affair that can in no way be applied in this country. I am sure that is not the case at all. The advantages which they have are very few and very obvious. They fall under three headings: First of all, uniformity of produce; secondly, balanced farming; and, thirdly, co-operation. The first two follow from the third. They have uniformity of produce which makes it infinitely easier for the people who stand between them and the goods which they are providing for the public to handle those goods at every stage. They have balanced, farming, which means that they can get very much larger numbers of stock on their farms and that they can produce more per acre than the farmers in this country. The fact that they produce 48 tons of milk per hundred acres,
whereas in this country we produce only 17½ tons of milk per hundred acres, speaks for itself. These are the figures for 1914. The proportion between the pigs kept per hundred acres in this country and in Denmark is also very wide. The number in Denmark is 26 and in this country only eight. That shows that there is a great deal that can be done in England by more intensive and higher farming, or by bringing the revenue or turnover of the farmer on to a scale whereby he can make enough money and operate on a sufficiently large scale, not only to put his industry in a proper condition, but, more important still, to pay his labourers a really living wage. At the present time there is one sweated industry in this country, and it is agriculture. If you want to find a worker who lives under conditions which no other worker would toleate, you must go to the agicultural labourer.
There is another point which could be dealt with by the Ministry under this particular Amendment, and that is the question of education. Propaganda is quite useless. Propaganda is persuading somebody to believe in something for your own benefit. Education is persuading somebody to believe in something for his benefit. We do not want propaganda, but we do want education. It is no use having experimental farms, because the average farmer cannot experiment. He has not the time. His business is to grow what he knows he can grow for at profit. What are of real use to farmers are model demonstration farms. They can be worked by farmers in the counties concerned—not by the Government—and they can get their money for working them under the Trade Facilities Act. They should in no case be less than 3,000 acres, and they should be split up into a large number of farms and run under a unified control, so that any farmer in the county could go to them and see what is being done and what could be done. A farm of 3,000 acres can itself maintain a butter factory and a bacon factory from the produce grown upon it. You have a complete organisation of agriculture serving as a demonstration for two, three, or four counties, as the case may be. These are all things which come within the scope of the Bill, and in that case alone each one of those farms demands up to £150,000 capital; with land at £15
per acre, that means £45,000 in that direction to commence with. I feel that one of the guiding principles of our future national policy must be the development of our rural population and the rural side of our modern civilisation. I am quite sure that the generation which I represent will not display that passion for pavements which, unfortunately, has been observable during the past 50 years, and I appeal to this House, which is not usually lacking in courage when faced with great emergencies, to create this opportunity for real reform in the agricultural industry, and for a real and active policy on the part of the Ministry of Agriculture, by supporting this Amendment.

Sir COURTENAY MANSEL: I am aware that this Amendment makes a great demand upon the Government, and needs to be supported by cogent arguments, such as my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Mond) has put before the Committee, and I am happy to be the first person to congratulate him on taking the first step in following a career of distinction, in which his father has set him an example. It is, I know, to ask the Government, in effect, to put in the foreground of their programme of social reform an industry that has not been identified with their party politically; it is to ask them, not for a policy of makeshifts and doles and opportunism, but for a great constructive policy based upon co-operation; it is to ask them to do for this country what the Danish Government did in years past for Danish agriculture, when it was even more un-prosperous than English agriculture is to-day. I know that we have great difficulties to overcome. We have, on the part of both the Opposition and the Government Benches, preconceptions, eidola fori, to overcome. On the part of the Government Benches there is the pre judice against country landlords. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am very glad to hear my statement questioned, but I would urge that, although the country landlord has been domineering in matters of sport and in other ways, he has not been grasping. On the part of the Opposition, there is preconception against control to overcome. I shall not shock hon. Members by using such a revolutionary term
as nationalisation of distribution, but that such a great guarantee on the part of the Government would entail a measure of guidance and even of control is undoubted.
We are asking for a great sum of money, because we are asking for a great policy. There is an Oriental story about a jester who started to tell a story to a Sultan on the condition that if he did not please him with his story he should be executed. His story turned on a squirrel which carried away an acorn and dropped it into a hollow tree. Then it got another acorn and dropped it into the hollow tree, and so on, ad infinitum, and in order to bring his story to an end the Sultan bought him off with a wazirate. We are not asking the Government to drop acorns into a hollow tree. We are not asking them for bacon factories and creameries; we are asking them for something very much more important, for the organisation, the intelligent, wise organisation, of the great agricultural industry. You may say, Why is that necessary? Why cannot the farmer do that for himself, without Government assistance? The answer is, because the farmer is the farmer. He has to live on the land because he loves the land. He is ascriptus glebae, bound to the land by the love of the soil, the true servitude of affection. Our ancestors were right in drawing a distinction between one temperament and another. There is the mercurial temperament, the genial temperament, the saturnine temperament, and they are very different things. The habit of mind that takes a man to the City to earn a large fortune, often lat the expense of his poorer fellow-countrymen, is a very different habit of mind from the one that keeps him in the country, engaged in a happy and healthful occupation, but not making money.
There is a prevailing opinion, quite erroneous, as everyone knows in the country who knows well enough, that the farmer is always making money. [An HON. MEMBER: "Losing it!"] Yes, he is losing it, and the man who makes the money is the middleman. The consumer is paying more than enough for his agricultural produce, while the producer is hardly realising enough to encourage him to persist in that very necessary industry. We are asking, for the benefit of this country, for that great policy to be carried out here which has been carried
out in Denmark. We are asking for a great deal, I acknowledge. We want to have the collection of agricultural produce organised. We want to have the grading of agricultural produce organised. That is a very important point, because, if a standard of quality is once established, you gain the certainty of a market. One of the great advantages which the Danish produce enjoys in the markets of the world is the fact that its quality is established. The mark on Danish bacon is the guarantee of good quality. We want, therefore, grading organised, and we want to go further. We want the State to act as the beneficent friend with regard to transport. We want the State to extort from the railways reasonable terms for the agricultural industry, and we want to go even a step further. We want to see the State organise marketing. That is the most important, and perhaps the most difficult problem.
I know that we are asking a great deal, but I think the demand is worthy of the great principles that the Government now in office profess, and I ask their support and kindly consideration of this Amendment for the reason that I quoted at the beginning of my speech, namely, that the present Government owes very little to the agricultural industry. We support the present Government because we believe them to be a disinterested and patriotic Government, although we disagree with many of their views. If I express myself in a confused manner, it is due to the fact that I sit for the most part under an intermittent hail of interjections from the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), and it is unsettling my convictions. If I were able to sit nearer to him, more at his feet, as Paul did at the feet of Gamaliel, perhaps I should not be misdirected, but I am afraid I am moving, not in the direction of Socialism, but in the direct of anarchism. The State is not the friend; the real benefactor is an enlightened, if rather self-willed, board of guardians with a marked taste for the fine arts. I begin to believe that the State is more of a burden than a blessing.

The CHAIRMAN: I must call the hon. Member's attention to the Amendment.

Sir C. MANSEL: I beg your pardon, Mr. Young, for transgressing the rules. I hope the Government will, in regard to
this Amendment, be worthy of the great ideals which their party professes. I call them great ideals, however mistaken they may be. They are yet generous and magnanimous ideals, and I hope the Government may have something of the faith that moves mountains in this matter. I hope they will not sink into the rut of official routine, and become as dull and uninspired as the most reactionary Government that ever held office in this country.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): I intervene now because it is important without delay to put the precise facts of this Amendment before the Committee, but before doing so, I would like to draw attention to one or two general considerations affecting this scheme as a whole. The House will remember that origiNally the idea of the Trade Facilities Act was to help employment; in the second place, to contribute to the permanent productive power of the country; and, thirdly, to depend upon an Advisory Committee of financial experts whose different experiences would be at the disposal of the Government of the day in important matters of this kind. I recall these three facts this afternoon, because they bring us back to the main purpose of this legislation. It was the clear intention of the framers of the original Bill that there should be maximum freedom to the Advisory Committee in recommending the guarantees that were to be given, and I think the Committee will agree, not only as regards this Amendment, but as regards many other Amendments on the Paper of a restrictive character, that the only effect of such Amendments would be to deter applicants from coming forward, which, of course, would further aggravate unemployment, or at all events hinder its cure; and not only that, but even if they did come forward, they would make the conditions of the loans which they themselves had to obtain in the outside market more difficult, and in the next place prejudice to that extent the guarantee which the State is giving under this Bill.
That is the broad effect of every restrictive device which would be introduced, but while I think these considerations of themselves would be sufficient to go a very long way in objection to these Amend-
ments, there are substantial objections to be applied to this Amendment itself which I could summarise in a very brief space. The present position is that as at November last there remained about £11,000,000 available for guarantees. To that we propose to add about £15,000,000 under the extended scheme of the Bill, that is, as between the 9th November last, when the Act expired, and the end of March, 1925. The Amendment would have the effect of allocating, for the specific purpose of agriculture, £10,000,000 of the total sum available for guarantees, and the Mover and Seconder themselves do not disguise the fact that that is a very large claim to make upon a sum of that kind—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—although, I dare say, the Committee generally will have complete sympathy with the object they have in view. I think it is very undesirable, indeed, to segregate any part of this guarantee, however important the object-Supposing for a minute that the test of unemployment were taken. Now while there is distress in the agricultural areas we all regret at the present time, it is true that the volume of unemployment in the agricultural districts is not very great, with the exception of one or two areas, so that really, from the point of view of unemployment, I do not think the proposers of this Amendment have a very strong case. But, apart from that, there is the substantial difficulty of setting aside a very large part of the guarantee under conditions, or in circumstances, which I will try to show in a moment do not strictly call for that course. If this total sum of £10,000,000 were set aside and earmarked for agriculture, or rural purposes, what would happen if by any chance any portion of that guarantee were not applied for or used?

Mr. MOND: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Minister of Agriculture has promised nothing at all except under the Trade Facilities Act?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am coming to that in a minute. The only effect of segregating this amount of £10,000,000, and possibly not getting applications up to anything like that amount, would be to sterilise that part of this segregated guarantee, if I may so describe it, for which you had no application at all. I want to remind the hon. Gentleman that there is a very
distinct danger of such action, because, after all, it was perfectly open to any agricultural enterprise in this country, and it is open to-day, to come forward under the Trade Facilities Act, and that an agricultural enterprise, such as rural railways, or anything of that sort, is a perfectly fair field for the Advisory Committee. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Mond) indicated that he is not satisfied, with others, for what has been done for agriculture. I quite agree that a great deal more might be done for agriculture, but on this Bill quite clearly it is not my business to say anything about grants under the Development Commission from the Unemployment Grants Committee, or any other provision that can be made. For the moment, I am concerned only with Trade Facilities, but I think I have discharged my duty if I say that the field is perfectly open for agricultural enterprise, and the effect of the Amendment would be to limit the total amount available for guarantees, which, I am perfectly sure, is the last object of the two hon. Members who have suggested this Amendment, On these grounds, summarising very briefly the matter, I hope the Committee will support us in refusing to set aside a sum when, in point of fact, the general scheme is open to agricultural enterprise in this country.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment, and the hon. Member who supported it, surely entirely fail to understand the scope, the object and the policy of the Trade Facilities Act. I expected they would put before the Committee an argument reconciling this Amendment with the scope, the object and the policy of the Trade Facilities Act, but not one word has fallen from the lips of either hon. Gentleman except generalities as to the advantages of co-operative farming and the advantages that would accrue from the building of light railways, and so on. If they wished to ask for our support of this Amendment, I would suggest that their argument should have proceeded along these lines. They should have said, "We have numerous illustrations of farmers who are willing to co-operate, and come before the Trade Facilities Committee and say, 'We wish to build a light railway, five miles long, in order to get our produce to market. We are prepared to ask jointly for an advance,
that you will guarantee the interest on that advance, and that we stand behind that guarantee, because we believe if we had these facilities, we should be able to improve our position and the general position of farming.'" Equally, if they had been able to lay before the Committee any evidence to show that groups of farmers either on their own initiative, or groups of farmers who had interested third parties to come before the Trade Facilities Committee with specific schemes requesting the guarantee of interest for a specific amount, then I might understand they could have attracted some sympathy and support for this Amendment.
But not one word has been uttered to show that, even if this Amendment were passed, anything would be done under it, because we have had no evidence—and I know of none in existence—of any co-operative group of farmers enlisting the sympathy of a group of speculators to take the risk of putting up capital, come forward to develop these schemes, and put that capital behind the guarantee of interest given by the Trade Facilities Committee. I must say I do not think the Financial Secretary took the strongest ground he could have taken in asking the Committee to reject this Amendment. He would have been on stronger and safer ground if he had said that no argument had been put before the Committee to commend this Amendment to our attention. I still say, if they can produce the arguments for the demand which is asked for in this Amendment, the Amendment is unnecessary, because the very evidence they could give which would enlist our support would, if given before the Committee, enlist for them the guarantee of the interest they seek, without any such Amendment. For these reasons, I certainly support the Government in refusing the Amendment.

Mr. PATTINSON: If the hon. Member who has just sat down knows anything about the Trade Facilities Committee, he knows perfectly well there is not a single agricultural member on that Committee, and if there is only £10,000,000 to be guaranteed, we do want to draw attention to the fact that agriculture does not seem likely to derive any benefit under the Trade Facilities Act. To say that no application is coming forward is hardly true, because I have myself, on behalf of
a bacon factory, applied for the loan of £6,000. I hope we may get it. But may I draw attention once again to the statement of the Prime Minister when he was explaining the Government's policy to Parliament? He said that the Government proposed to support, either by loans or guarantees, co-operative societies controlled by the agricultural community. Will the hon. Gentleman kindly tell me to what Committee we have to apply if we cannot get support from the Trade Facilities Committee? If we as agriculturists are to have placed on our shoulders the burden of a Wages Board, what are we going to receive as compensation for that? I am not against the Wages Board. I think it is essential, but I do say this: How is the Government going to solve the problem that a good many people are trying to solve in regard to houses, and that is, try to get more out of a pint pot than it will hold? We cannot guarantee a better wage unless we have more money placed in the industry.

The CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss Wages Boards.

Mr. PATTINSON: I am not discussing the Wages Boards. I said we must have more money placed in the industry if the policy laid down by the Prime Minister is to be carried into effect. I do not wish to press the matter unduly. I think my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Mond) has proved himself a worthy son of his father in having the audacity to come to this House and demand, in his maiden speech, £10,000,000 from the Government. What I wish to impress is that if agriculture is to be prosperous, and if we are to pay the wage we ought to pay, if we are to provide capital for fertilisers, etc., which the farmer to-day is unable to do owing to lack of capital, and if the promise of the Prime Minister is to be carried into effect, surely the Trade Facilities Committee is the Committee to which we should apply. If it is not the Committee, perhaps the Financial Secretary will tell us which is the Committee. At any rate, we who represent agricultural districts, such as mine, where we have not one manufactory of any sort or description, will never rest until we receive that consideration which the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) and others seem to think id simply for the unemployed in various industries of the country. Mind we do not
get more unemployment in agriculture. Mind we do not find that more arable land is laid down to grass, and large numbers of men thrown out of work. I fear it very much. I am a farmer, and know what it costs. I am in favour of anything and any scheme which will bring back prosperity to our countryside, which will enable us to pay a reasonably decent wage to the workers, and also enable the farmers to make a decent living.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think my hon. Friends the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment altogether deserve the censure, or criticism, rather, of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour), and I intervene to say so, and also to congratulate them upon their admirable endeavour to ventilate the real needs of the agricultural industry. My hon. Friend the Mover said he was a friend of a forlorn hope. I trust not. It is certainly very timely, and, I hope, will be most fruitful. Nothing could be more dangerous to this country than a top-heavy orientation of its population. If by some means or other we can get that redressed, let us do it. If I consider the method of approach to this question of my hon. Friends the Mover and Seconder, they will not misunderstand me. The maximum of the Trade Facilities Act is, or was, £50,000,000, now it is to be made £65,000,000. Of this amount £42,000,000 have been guaranteed—rather more, I think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury told us. That leaves £8,000,000 of the original sum, which, with the £15,000,000 provided by this Act, gives a total of £23,000,000. That has got to cover all the interests involved up to March, 1925. Very well. My hon. Friends suggest the ear-marking of £10,000,000 for agriculture. That leaves £13,000,000. If this were done it is quite evident that the Government would have pretty soon to raise the maximum of £65,000,000 to something considerably higher. Look at the objects provided for. I do think that the Financial Secretary might have been a little more helpful. He told us that he was afraid that if he went outside the limit for trade facilities purposes he would get out of order. But I think we all see that the real motive which was behind was the fact that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was not going—quite correctly!—to show
people how they can get money. That is not his business. That may or may not be so. But I should like to say in the first place, taking light railways—and with the very greatest respect and an anxiety to help my hon. Friends in every way possible—that I do not think their method of approach is the right one. The method of approach is rather to the Minister of Transport, to convince him that those concerned have good schemes for light railways, and to get him to go to the Treasury, and find the necessary grant for these light railways. I want an assurance, if I can get it, from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that any scheme of light railways which is put before the Treasury through the Minister of Transport will have the sympathetic consideration of the Treasury for a grant. That, I venture to think as an old Member of the House, would not be out of order, I would like to ask the Financial Secretary to give me the assurance—

Mr. BALFOUR: Who is to have this benefit?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The people who make the application, and to the body that already has given grants. Several schemes have been started. I had the pleasure of starting one myself. As regards the reclamation of the land, that has not begun at all in England, though I think it has in Scotland to a small degree. It is the same thing. There is the Unemployment Grants Committee which has money to the extent of £20,000,000 this financial year. More is needed. I should like the Financial Secretary to the Treasury even to risk the possibility of getting near the limited border, to get up and say, "This is not quite the method of approach to get the money for the reclamation of the land: there is the Unemployment Grants Committee; but if any scheme is brought before me of a practical and useful kind which helps unemployment I will do my best with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find the money." If my hon. Friend will only do that for us he will have done a very, very useful stroke of work. The same thing applies to drainage. What is needed for drainage is a grant from the Unemployment Grants Committee to start the thing. Let me make an appeal again to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who made an extremely in-
teresting speech. Let him give an assurance that any serious scheme that will help the unemployed, which is properly brought forward, will have the sympathetic consideration of the Treasury. If I can ever hear those words said by the Financial Secretary I shall feel I have not lived in vain!
The Amendment next deals with a group of things which will come within the Trade Facilities Act—co-operative storage facilities, depots, co-operative factories, roads, etc. It does seem to me that if the people come forward and say, "We can start these, they are fair objects for guarantee under the Trade Facilities Act," that the Trade Facilities authorities, if they are genuine schemes put forward, will help without any earmarking of the £10,000,000, and will give a guarantee to any serious scheme for these purposes. As to roads, application should be made to the Ministry of Transport. Not enough money has been profitably used, and I want the Minister of Transport, when he gets a good scheme from an agricultural body, to go to the Treasury and subsequently say that on the assurance of the Treasury he will give his consent, and that he will help to find money for such a scheme. The Financial Secretary said a thing which rather surprised me. He said—if I heard him aright—that there was not a great deal of unemployment in the agricultural districts.

Mr. GRAHAM: I said with certain exceptions.

Dr. MACNAMARA: During a long time, ever since the repeal of the Corn Production Act—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—there has been a steady drift from the agricultural districts to the poorer parts of the great towns. The aim of these poor men has been to get into insurable occupations so that when they fell out of work they would be eligible for unemployment benefit. I am perfectly certain that this Committee does not appreciate the extent to which that drift has been going on. It is a very serious matter indeed. I appeal to the Financial Secretary now to supplement what he has already said. He said, quite truly, that you are sterilising this £10,000,000 if it is not applied for, and that that would reduce the £23,000,000 pro tanto. That is quite true. He practically says that some of these projects are provided for
already if application is made. As the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) said, that is true. What I want to impress upon the attention of hon. Members, so far as I am concerned, is the need for the further assurance I have suggested. If schemes are brought to my hon. Friend by the responsible Minister for grants under the Unemployment Grants Committee, I trust he will consider the grants available, go to the Treasury in view of the serious state of agriculture, and that he will give these applications every sympathetic consideration.

Mr. HANNON: I desire for a few moments to speak in opposition to this Amendment. I am afraid that the pro-poser and supporters of the Amendment have not taken very much trouble to understand the precise intention of the-Trade Facilities legislation which has passed through this House. There is no real reason whatever why they should not achieve everything they want under existing legislation if only they are prepared to put forward practical schemes. The hon. Member who supported the Amendment talked a good deal about agricultural co-operation. He particularly referred to the success of agricultural co-operation among Danish farmers. I had at one time in my life a very intimate knowledge of Danish agriculture. The whole success of Danish agriculture is dependent on self-government amongst the farmers themselves without assistance from outside, and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, who—if I may respectfully say so—understands agricultural co-operation better probably than any other man in this House, will agree with me that the whole structure and highly organised state of Danish agriculture to-day, was built up by the people themselves on the principle of real co-operation, not by continually going hat in hand to the State to get some sort of subsidy.
It is the duty of this House to do everything possible to restore our rural civilisation. I believe that this House ought to contribute in every way it can to bring people back to the land and to make the agricultural industry a profitable one to the whole farming community. But I think it is very foolish to try to bring about the restoration of better agricultural conditions in this country
by continually going to the State and asking for subsidies and grants. You are going to ask the Government to help co-operation. I remember spending many weeks in England, addressing meetings of farmers in advocacy either of distributive or productive co-operation. Nobody in this world can tackle a more difficult process than getting English farmers to co-operate. You have to contend against every sort of difficulty. It is almost impossible to get two or three English farmers to co-operate in carrying out certain agricultural processes.

Sir C. MANSEL: I was careful to state that the Danish State promoted the system.

Mr. HANNON: I am afraid my hon. Friend is wrong. The Danish State has not promoted co-operation. It afforded facilities for research work for farmers. It assisted them in providing for the purity of their fertilisers, and guaranteeing the fertility of the farm seeds, and so on, and it did some valuable work in promoting agricultural education. But the greater success of the Danish farmer is in large measure due to the rural high schools which were started in Denmark with the specific object of training the grown-up children of the Danish farmers in practical agriculture and in rural pursuits. Hon. Members on the opposite side who give attention to the work of the co-operative movement know perfectly well that that is how Denmark achieved its great position in Europe as the most intensely cultivated agricultural community, and the most successful competitor in our own markets with our own farmers. That is co-operation by the people themselves having the full conviction of it; working together for the cheapening of production, and reducing the cost of transit. It was carried on on the principle of self-help, without going to the Government and asking them for guarantees or subsidies to enable them to continue these operations. There is not a single Danish bacon factory, nor a single Danish co-operative society for the collection and export of eggs, not one single one of these very successful institutions, nor the Federation of which they are part, that has received one single penny from the State in the work which they have so
successfully carried on to the present time.

Mr. PRINGLE: This would not give the farmers a penny, but only a guarantee.

Mr. HANNON: There was no guarantee in Denmark. The main thing was co-operation and good will among the farmers themselves. Therefore I believe that the Financial Secretary is acting appropriately in rejecting this Amendment and in inviting the House not to embody it in the Bill. If hon. Members opposite who profess at this late hour of the day sub attachment to agriculture are really serious let them encourage the farmers in their respective constituencies to put practical schemes before the Financial Secretary, and I think they will find that they will get a reply that will be helpful.

Mr. PRINGLE: Why should it only be the industrialists who get this money?

Mr. HANNON: Because the industrialists carry the whole country on their back. It is the industrial community of this country that is the most highly taxed on the face of the earth. The hon. Gentleman has no right to say that the industrialists are to be singled out—

Mr. PRINGLE: Why should they get all the benefit?

Mr. HANNON: They are entitled to get all they can. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I repeat, there ought to be no segregation of the grants appropriate under this Bill. The needs of the agricultural industry should be treated on their merits.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. ROYCE: I am very pleased that this Amendment has been brought forward, because it has given us an opportunity of hearing, from a quarter we hardly expected, a considerable amount of solicitude in regard to the condition of agriculture. It furnishes me with an opportunity to make an appeal to the Minister of Agriculture to enlarge his ideas as to what is possible at the present moment, being assured, I am quite sure, of the support of the Liberal party, after the speeches that have been made this afternoon. I can only imagine that the timidity with which, in my opinion, he
has approached the agricultural question was caused by the fear that he would not get the support of the party below the Gangway. Now that we have a different atmosphere and are assured of their great interest in agricultural subjects, I think he should take his courage in both hands and bring forward some of those larger schemes which he has in his mind. I thank the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) for his contribution, because he has made suggestions that can be taken up. Agricultural railways is one of them. The party on the Opposition Benches brought forward schemes of this kind, but they allowed them to die for want of further support. The axe came into operation; schemes which were ready for execution were killed, and the Minister has now an opportunity of reviving those schemes and putting them into operation.
Agricultural railways will serve a double purpose. They will save large contributions from the Road Fund, and they will provide employment. There is the other subject of reclamation. This may not be the proper means of obtaining funds for reclamation, but I am afraid that this Government, like preceding Governments, have not taken any steps towards reclamation. There are almost tens of thousands of acres ripe for reclamation at the present time in this country, which would afford not only employment but would also give something in return for the labour expended upon them, and which would be a continual source of production for this country. I agree that many of our agricultural labourers are drifting away from the country, and it is time their situation was taken into consideration. We are losing valuable time; another winter will be upon us, and we are making no effort by which the position of the agricultural labourer can be improved. There is not a single Member on either side of the House who has described the direful position of the agricultural labourer in this country at the present time. When I hear the claims made by other sections of the working community, who obtain wages which, compared with those of the agriculturist, seem to be enormous, it brings more forcibly to my mind than ever the condition of the agricultural labourer, who to a large extent has been neglected. If this opportunity, so well
taken by the hon. Members below the Gangway, has brought to the consciousness of the Government the urgent necessity of giving greater attention to agricultural subjects, and especially to the condition of the agricultural worker, it will have done a great deal of good.

Lieut-Colonel WOODWARK: I rise to support the Amendment so ably proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Mond). In doing so, I should like to draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the fact that while £10,000,000 has been asked for agriculture, the point made against the Amendment is that there is no need to earmark that sum specially for this industry. After the speeches made by hon. Members opposite, representing industrial concerns, it is very necessary that a certain sum should be earmarked for agriculture. Large sums are asked for, and I believe it is the fact that the Trade Facilities Committee prefer to deal with sums of £100,000 and upwards rather than with smaller amounts. Loans asked for agriculture will necessarily be in small amounts, and I should like an assurance from the Minister that there will be agricultural experts on this Committee. That is very necessary, because the industrial representatives appear to treat agriculture as a plaything, when it is really one of the most important industries in this country.
In dealing with light railways, I hope the Minister will consider the altered conditions caused by motor transport. Many farmers are taking their produce by road direct to the markets, and to their destinations. Third-class roads in many districts would be more useful than light railways. The problem of drainage is in a very serious position. The drainage boards are already overloaded with loans. Farmers are overloaded with taxes. As the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) said, what is really desired is a grant. Failing that, if they have to resort to loans, I hope that the Government will give facilities for granting them loans on better terms, say, 4 per cent. on money taken up. The two drainage boards I know are the Welland Drainage Board and the Ouse Drainage Board. The Ouse Drainage Board is concerned with the drainage of 10 counties, and they will have to deal in the near future with the outfall
drainage of the Ouse. I may read what the engineer said quite recently concerning the drainage of the Ouse in those 10 counties. He says:
The repair and extension of the training walls would be of great benefit to the river both for drainage and navigation, as they would confine the flow and cause scour which would help to maintain a deep channel, and also would, I am confident, prevent to a very considerable extent, the silting up of the river which now goes on, as they would bring the inflowing tide from the deeper waters of the Wash, and not from the shallow silt carrying water that ebbs and flows across the sand banks; when these works are done, dredging would be of great benefit and practicable, but without the training walls dredging would be more or less abortive, as the silt would settle in the dredged portions almost as fast as it was dredged away, unless the work was only carried out when there were freshets coming down the river.
The danger of breaks in the hanks is very great in the South Level Area and above Denver Sluice, and is caused principally by the bad state of the river between Denver Sluice and the sea, on account of the tremendous amount of silt brought in from the Wash, and deposited along the river during the summer months. At Ely in December last it was sufficiently high to put almost the whole of the South Level Area, amounting to some 150,000 acres of agricultural land, in a very precarious condition indeed.
That would have been most disastrous. It would possibly have caused great damage to the best land we have, and might have led to a loss of life. I am sure the Government would be sorry if such a catastrophe occurred, because it might be the moans of decreasing the majority of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely. The hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Royce) has spoken very rightly in regard to reclamation. The Wash scheme is one that I think the Government should undertake. If it were taken in hand on a large scale, work would be found for thousands of men for years. Smaller schemes of reclaiming land could be started by private undertakings. The great objection made to reclamation is that it is not an economic proposition, but I maintain that reclamation schemes must be treated as unemployment schemes, and by that means you could provide work instead of doles. In taking into account the cost of reclamation, the Government ought to consider the cost of a man when he is getting the dole. The average cost of the dole per man,
single and married, works out at about £40 a year. There are, round Lincolnshire and Norfolk coast at the present time pieces which are ready and ripe for reclamation to the extent of 3,720 acres. They are in odd lots of 600 acres, 170 acres, 600 acres, 700 acres, 400 acres, 390 acres, 640 acres and 220 acres. These figures are obtained from the Ministry of Agriculture's own engineer. Much skilled assistance would be required before this work could be put in hand, but by giving private enterprise a chance you could do it much cheaper.
I know that in the case of one 640 acres and the other 220 acres there is Some sort of organisation at work which will take them at least 15 years to reclaim at the present rate of progress, but if the Government can come to their assistance they can provide work for some 300 or 400 men for two years, and the work would be done in that time. I ask that the attention of the Government should be drawn to this fact, and that they will consult the engineers of the Ministry in order that private enterprise may be encouraged. One other very helpful thing in connection with the scheme is that these places are near towns where the unemployed could get to and from their homes very easily. I hope this Amendment will show the Government the urgent necessity for doing something for agriculture, and I trust they will deal with this industry on a different basis from other undertakings. I think we should have some additional statement from the Minister of Agriculture as to the policy of the Government with which, up to the present, many of us are very dissatisfied.

Captain TERRELL: I rise to support this Amendment. I do so because I represent an agricultural constituency, and I am fully alive to the fact that something must be done for that important industry. I cannot understand why it is the Government have refused to accept this Amendment. I recall quite well that on the eve of the fall of the late Government, the Prime Minister laid great stress upon the necessity of doing something for this industry and doing it at once. Now, when there is an opportunity of showing good faith, instead of accepting what I consider to be a very useful Amendment, practically they turn
it down, and why? Some hon. Members may be under the impression that it means a subsidy to the industry. The hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon) mentioned the word "subsidy," but there is no such thing in this proposal. If it is a subsidy, then every industry which receives any benefit under the Trade Facilities Act is being subsidised, and why should not agriculture, which is the most important industry in this country in which more people are employed than in any other industry and in which more capital is invested, not be assisted financially? I listened with great interest to the speech delivered by the hon. Member for the Holland Division (Mr. Royce) and I think very few hon. Members in this House possess such a good knowledge of the industry as he does. He has urged upon his own Government the necessity of accepting this Amendment. What is there in this Amendment to which anybody could possibly take exception? May I just read the Amendment? It is as follows:
and of this amount guarantees to the extent of ten million pounds shall be allocated exclusively to capital undertakings for agricultural districts such as light railways, reclamation of land, drainage, co-operative storage facilities, depots, co-operative factories, roads, and such other agricultural purposes as shall be determined.
I cannot for the life of me see what objection the Government can have to assisting this industry in that way. I am very glad to see the Minister of Agriculture in his place, and I have not a shadow of a doubt that he will join in this Debate. I should not be at all surprised if he does accept this Amendment. At any rate, I hope he will. So far he has made several statements to the effect that he is going to produce a policy for the agricultural industry, but up to date I have not seen much of a comprehensive policy from his Department. He has talked about the re-establishment of the Agricultural Wages Board, co-operation, and one or two minor points, but he has not yet produced a comprehensive agricultural policy. I hope if he does join in this Debate, that he will accept the Amendment without any reservations whatsoever.
In this Amendment special attention is drawn to the question of supplying light
railways. I am one of those who hold the view that it is absolutely essential to do something to bring up the system of transportation in rural districts to a modern standard. In this country to-day a great deal more food could be produced on the farms if the farmers were certain, after the food had been produced, that there was some convenient method of getting it through to the market. If this can be done, as suggested by this Amendment, by light railways, why should not the first Socialist Government start that method? I also see in the Amendment that co-operative storage facilities, depots and factories should benefit under this £10,000,000 loan. The Government themselves have said they are in favour of a system of co-operative societies in agriculture. If they are really in favour of that, why should they not assist in the way this Amendment suggests?
The hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham seems to be rather a pessimist when dealing with co-operative societies in agricultural districts. My experience—and one can only speak from first-hand knowledge—is that a great deal of good can be done by fostering and assisting co-operative movements and enterprises in the industry of agriculture. In Oxfordshire I know of three societies formed amongst smallholders and farmers. They have done extraordinarily well, and there is no doubt about it that if only they were encouraged and assisted by the Government of the day in the way of loans at a cheap rate of interest, a great deal more food could be produced in the countryside which would help to bring down the cost of living in this country I cannot help feeling that the Government are placing themselves in a very false position by opposing this Amendment. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will make a clear announcement on this question, and overrule the decision which has been given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury by accepting this Amendment in full.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I feel constrained to rise and add a few words to this Debate. I, for one—and I think I may also speak for the vast majority of hon. Members interested in agriculture in this House—do not agree with the attitude of the Government on this matter. I am glad that the hon. Member for Henley
(Captain Terrell) has taken part in this Debate, as he is the first hon. Member on the opposite side who has defended this Amendment. Two other speakers have made speeches pointing out that the one great industry to be benefited was not agriculture, but consisted of other concerns appertaining to urban city life. I know my hon. and gallant Friend's speech represents the view of the party opposite, and I believe they are sincerely anxious to benefit the agriculture of this country. I hope my colleagues on this side, unless we get a satisfactory assurance, will divide against this Motion.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury did not show his usual brilliance and acumen when he opposed this Amendment. He talked quite glibly about the origin of the Trade Facilities Committee, and he too fell into the error of the hon. Member for Moseley, that the sum of money which had been set aside as guarantees for industries should be devoted solely to the urban industries of this country. The hon. Member never told us whether a single penny was allocated to agriculture. He said that out of this large sum of £65,000,000, if agriculture put forward in the future any good scheme, it would be considered, but there is not a single man on the Committee who has any first-class knowledge of agriculture. I have a great respect for the members of the Committee, but I would impress upon the Government the desirability of reconstituting it and having upon it somebody who has a deep and sincere interest in the agricultural industry of this country.
I think on this point I speak for the vast majority of hon. Members of this House, when I say that until that is done the country will not rest assured that the vast sum of money to be allocated as guarantees is being properly allocated in the best interests of the country. I wish to reinforce the appeals which have been made by my hon. Friends behind me. There is no doubt a great anxiety for the future welfare of the agricultural industry of this country. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury told us that the trade facilities loans or guarantees were, first of all, initiated for unemployment, and he made bold to say that there was unemployment only in one or two agricul-
tural cities. Does he not see that unemployment in the cities is very much related to the conditions of the countryside, and if those conditions are bad, they immediately drive all the young men to compete in the labour market in the cities. Until you get at the root of the evil, the regeneration of the countryside by guarantees through loans and grants, you will still have the city problem of unemployment.
I should have thought that my hon. Friend of all men—because I realise that he has gone to the root of these matters, both in his work at the Treasury and before he went to the Treasury—would have been the first person to realise that one of the great means of combating unemployment in this country is to go in for a strong policy of rural regeneration such as is outlined in this Amendment. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara), who has himself been in office, and knows what can be done, made a most effective speech. Those of us who are interested in agriculture know that very often a guarantee for a loan is not sufficient. There are many schemes which can only be met by grants particularly in rural districts where the rateable value is very low, and where people, very often, have never heard of public loans—whenever they want a small loan they go to the local bank, and their only credit is their own character. When people in that station of life desire, say, a light railway, they cannot put up the amount of money locally which is demanded by the Treasury before they can get a loan. I would impress upon my hon. Friend that he should persoNally investigate these cases, for it is by these small things, and not by great main roads, that an improvement is to be effected in the rural transport of this country; and, until the rural transport of this country is improved, the country as a whole will never get the full benefit from its agriculture. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Henley that it is time that the Minister of Agriculture should intervene in this Debate and tell us—for the Government, so far, has not told us—what he proposes to do in the interests of agriculture, and I would conclude by repeating what I said earlier, that, unless we get a satisfactory answer from the Financial Secretary to the
Treasury and from the Minister of Agriculture, we, at any rate in this part of the Committee, are prepared to defend the Amendment we have put on the Paper by going into the Division Lobby.

Mr. G. EDWARDS: I want first to express my satisfaction at the Amendment which has been moved from below the Gangway, although I must also express my surprise at the new-born zeal for agriculture that is shown by hon. Members on those benches [HON. MEMBER B: "Why?"] If hon. Members will wait a minute I will tell them why. A good many years ago, their Leader and my Leader then said in this House that the time was come when the land of this country should no longer be the pleasure-house of the rich, but should be the treasure-house of the poor. Hon. Members have been a long time making up their minds. I hope that this Amendment will influence the Minister of Agriculture to give us something more definite in regard to agricultural policy than he has up to this moment. The time has come when something should be done for this industry, so that the agricultural labourer may be put into a better position than he occupies at present. He has lost, during the last two years, by decreases in wages, £14,000,000, which is a very large slice to take from men with such small wages.
I cannot understand why the Minister should oppose this Amendment, and I hope he will accept it. It asks that guarantees should be given for a loan for one or two very commendable purposes. Firstly, there is the reclamation of land. Running from King's Lynn all along the Wash, and right down the coast, there are hundreds of acres that could be turned into beautiful fertile soil, employing hundreds of men, if it could be reclaimed, and I should think that this purpose ought to commend itself to any Minister, to whatever party he may belong. From that one point of view alone, I hope the Minister of Agriculture will seriously consider this Amendment. Again, one of the most serious difficulties against which agriculture has to contend is that of transport. As has been pointed out, many industries are suffering from excessive transport charges, and no industry at the moment is more handicapped in this respect than agriculture.
Something needs to be done in order to afford agriculture better facilities in regard to means of transport. As regards co-operation, I should like to see money advanced for this, but I am rather pessimistic as to whether the farmers as a class will accept it. The smallholders will, but I am afraid the farmers are too conservative in their methods to embrace these opportunities as they ought. However, a loan for the purpose of co-operation, reclaiming land, and transport facilities ought to commend itself to the Minister of Agriculture, and it will do something to secure for the labourer better and more constant employment than he has now.
I do not like to be in opposition to my Friends on the Front Bench, but I do not agree with the Financial Secretary in his remarks on unemployment. There is a great deal of unemployment in the rural districts, and it is rapidly increasing. I am anxious to see something done that will prevent it. It is quite true, as has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), that we are losing all our youngest and best blood from the villages. The first thing they do is to drift into the large towns, there to swell the unemployed market and compete with those who are already out of employment, and, consequently, to increase the unemployment there. Unless something is done to give better security, the unemployment in rural districts will be more intensified than ever after the next harvest. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will see his way to accept this Amendment and to give us something more definite about the policy in reference to agriculture, so that there may be some security and encouragement during the coming months for those engaged in that industry.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I listened very carefully to the speech of the Mover of this Amendment, and I must say that, after hearing it, I did not feel, at that moment, that his proposal would bring about any great advantage in regard to the urgent needs of agriculture at the moment, because it seemed to me that the schemes he was proposing were not schemes that would be put forward by private capitalists or private individuals, but would have to be done by some public Department. It was not until I heard the Financial
Secretary to the Treasury that I began to see that there was in what he said more hope of getting direct benefit for agriculture as it exists to-day. I am, therefore, going to ask the hon. Gentleman one or two questions. I understand that his answer to this Amendment is that under the Trade Facilities Act all that it asks for can now be accomplished. The answer to that is, "Not so." It is quite true that in theory anyone who brought forward these schemes would come within the terms of that Act, but it is a very different proposition to go before an Advisory Committee which had the doling out of these guarantees, where not a single soul takes the slightest interest in agriculture, where they do not know the needs of agriculture or the needs of the schemes put forward—it is a very different proposition to go before such a body as that, where they have an entirely free hand as to how they dispose of the money, from going before a body where some member has the interests of agriculture at heart, and, what is more important, where there is a definite sum that must be used, if used at all, for the purpose of agriculture. In the first place, I would ask the hon. Gentleman, on that part of the case, whether he can give any guarantee that, at any rate, there should be on the Advisory Committee some member who has the interest of agriculture at heart, and I should like to see him go further and say that the use of part of this money should be limited to agricultural purposes.
A great number of my constituents are engaged in milk production. During the last few years there has grown up—I protested against its formation during the War, and against its continued increase—a huge milk combine, which controls 70 per cent. of the milk consumed in London, which has a capital of some £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, and which has grown up by buying up private businesses at enormous cost. The company is extremely overcapitalised, and it has obtained such a hold on the milk industry that my constituents, who live on their farms and who contract for it twice a year, on the 30th September and the 31st of March, are placed in this position: They got on the 29th a letter saying, "Our price for the next six months is such and such a figure. If you do not accept it stop sending your milk from to-morrow." Very shortly
afterwards they issue an advertisement in the newspapers, "Our price for the next three or six months—whatever it may be—to the consumer is so much a quart." We are to-day in this position, that this huge combine or trust, overcapitalised in this way, fixes the buying price of the commodity, which is an absolute essential of life, in which they deal, and they fix the selling price of that very article to the consumer.

Mr. SHORT: On a point of Order. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman in order in discussing this matter upon this Amendment?

Sir H. CAUTLEY: The relevance is this. I am going to ask the Minister whether money can be devoted to fighting this combine.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): The hon. and learned Gentleman must restrict his remarks to the purpose of the Amendment.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I regard this as of the most vital importance. The Minister's proposal was to advance to co-operative societies £10,000.

Mr. SHORT: On a point of Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is surely not within his rights in discussing some proposal of the Minister to advance money. This is not incorporated in the Trade Facilities Bill nor in the Amendment.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: May I point out again that the interruption is really unnecessary. Under the very Amendment we are discussing, which is to give guarantees to co-operative factories, I am going to discuss co-operative factories.

Mr. SHORT: Are we to understand, Sir, that the hon. Member is to defy your ruling?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am waiting to see what the hon. and learned Gentleman's point is. Till I can let him pursue it I cannot rule on it.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: The Minister's proposal was to deal with this difficulty by establishing co-operative factories, to which a Government loan under the £200,000 scheme would be made not exceeding £10,000 to any factory. You might as well fight this battle with a popgun against an army armed with machine guns. I wish to ask the Secretary to the
Treasury whether under the Trade Facilities Act it is possible for farmers, by co-operation or in combination amongst themselves, to set up some scheme of either retail or wholesale dealing which would be an effective method of fighting this great combine and trust, whether that would come under the Trade Facilities Act and receive the benevolent support of the Minister of Agriculture and whether it would have the support of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I should also like to ask whether sugar beet factories would come under the Trade Facilities scheme. If there is one new industry which, in my opinion, is likely to benefit the agricultural industry and the agricultural worker, it is the establishment, and the increased establishment, of suger beet in this country, because it provides for one of the necessities of life that we have to import from abroad and because it finds work for men in the villages during the winter, when work is scarce, and for a considerable number of months during the winter. While it is doing that, it is, in the growing of the beet that is necessary to supply the raw material to these factories, not only employing a number of hands during the summer, and during the growing period, but it is, by the necessary decultivation that is required for growing beet, providing an enormous improvement in the land, which would otherwise suffer from want of improvement, in the future. If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury can satisfy me on these two points I shall feel inclined to accept his assurance, but unless I can get anything of that sort I shall vote for the Amendment.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Buxton): Hon. Members are quite misled in thinking the Government is unsympathetic towards the motives which lie behind the speeches which have been made this afternoon. I only feel somewhat mystified and surprised that if hon. Members opposite have for so long felt the need of achieving these objects, we did not see a little more done by the late Government. But that is no concern of ours when we are considering what we ought to do. I sympathise in the highest degree with the objects mentioned in the Amendment because to my mind the method suggested is not one to which there is objection
in principle, and it is a legitimate method of helping agriculture, and we want to do anything that is feasible in the direction indicated. However, the question before us at the moment is a rather narrow one. It is, whether a certain large proportion of the available money shall be hypothecated and rigidly devoted to agricultural aid. On that question of procedure, I support my hon. Friends behind me quite clearly and with conviction, because I think if anyone considers whether it would be feasible to rigidly allocate a certain large proportion to one kind of object, you would get into difficulties and you would not really promote the objects you have at heart.

Mr. LEIF JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to allocate any sum at all? He talks about a large sum. We have had no assurance that they will allocate any portion of it.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Out of the whole £65,000, has a single penny been allocated to agriculture?

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Have any applications been made from any agricultural section of the community for an allocation of this sort, and are not the sums at the disposal of the Advisory Board solely there to be given either to agriculture or to industry?

Mr. BUXTON: I am glad the question has been asked. There have been applications made in connection with sugar beet. In regard to those particular applications, I understand progress is not being made because the money that was to be put up by the promoters has not so far been forthcoming, and the applications are hanging fire. I hope many others will fructify later on. If I am asked by the right hon. Gentleman whether I am in favour of hypothecating any particular sum to a particular object, I do not think that is a method which will commend itself to his financial experience. I can promise that the fullest consideration will be given to the agricultural interest, and it will be my business to see that it is, but we should not be asked to depart from recognised financial procedure. Some of the objects mentioned—co-operative storage facilities, depots, co-operative factories, and similar agricultural purposes—have already been indicated, particularly in connection with the scheme
unfolded the other day, which has been alluded to as the £200,000 scheme. Applications for that kind of purpose are already being received, and I hope very shortly to announce the names of the Advisory Committee which will control the treatment of those applications. There is no question that if practical business schemes are brought before the Advisory Committee they will have at least equal favour in the eyes of the Committee, and it will be a special instruction to the Committee that they shall pay the fullest attention to schemes with an agricultural object which are brought before them in future. I am rather surprised that, in regard to the past, for which we are not responsible, there does not appear to have been any great attention given to agricultural objects in connection with the large amount of money which has already been dealt with.

Lieut.-Colonel WOODWARK: Will there be agricultural experts on the Advisory Committee?

6.0 P.M.

Mr. BUXTON: They certainly will have the advice of agricultural experts, though I believe the Committee is a very small one, and interests are not specially represented on it, but certainly they will have expert agricultural advice. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) asked me whether under the scheme we have in view it is anticipated that we shall promote methods of dealing with the milk combine. A good deal has been done already in the direction of creameries without State help, and I trust under the £200,000 scheme, and perhaps in the case of larger undertakings under the Trade Facilities Act, there will be very many enterprises which will deal with the milk question. In my view, beet is not merely incidental to the scheme of getting legitimate help for agriculture. It is of first-class importance in the future reform and resuscitation of rotation farming. The question of drainage was raised. I should like to say what has been done on that. £250,000 was allotted to drainage schemes before the Government came in. We have obtained sanction to add £60,000 for those schemes. This year that will be carried on to a later date than has hitherto been the practice, and the money will allow preparation for an early start on these
schemes, which are part of the policy, in the autumn in case there should be need.

Mr. SHORT: Are we to understand that these amounts to which the right hon. Gentleman refers have been granted under the Trade Facilities Act?

Mr. BUXTON: No, not under the Trade Facilities Act. I was asked what help and what sympathy had the Government shown towards drainage schemes. That is what we have done. I have not the slightest doubt that when schemes are brought before the Treasury, and I hope in many cases before the Ministry of Agriculture, I shall have an opportunity of expressing an opinion and taking them before the Treasury, and I am certain that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will treat them with extreme sympathy. It is only a question of the strict allocation of this sum of money, and I hope that having regard to what I have said as to the plans of the Government, and our desire to use the funds under this Act as far as we can for the promotion of agricultural aims, the Amendment will not be pressed.

Major DUDGEON: I realise that the agricultural community are suffering very severely from the starvation of capital. Many tenant farmers have had to sink all their capital in purchasing their holdings and, therefore, there is not sufficient money going to promote and to organise the industry as it should be organised today. In the constituency which I have the honour to represent, a large amount of money has been expended by farmere in setting up co-operative milk depote since the conclusion of the War. I believe that something like £100,000 have been expended by these farmers. The pressing difficulty of farmers in this particular district is that of transport. We want to extend our transport in a very scattered rural district. A system of light railways would be of tremendous assistance, and would allow us to get the fullest benefit from the co-operative milk depots that have been set up.
There is one point in the reply of the Minister of Agriculture which is not satisfactory and that is that agriculture is not to have a direct representative on the Advisory Committee. Agriculture is a very special industry and also a very complex and a very great industry, and it is essential that we should have a
practical agriculturist on the Committee, who would be able to give expert and practical advice to the Committee on any scheme that was brought forward dealing with agriculture. We cannot pull the agricultural industry through unless we have a large extension of credit facilities and of capital generally, and it is only by ear-marking a certain sum for this, the greatest and most truly basic, industry in the country, under this particular Bill, that agriculture will get anything like a fair share. I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a Division.

Mr. J. JONES: As representing one of the greatest agricultural constituencies in the country, I intervene in this Debate. The farmers in my constituency produce a plentiful supply of empty condensed milk tins, and a very large proportion of unemployed. Contained within its borders are all conditions of men who have not yet been subsidised. I congratulate our agricultural Friends upon their pertinacity and their principle virtue. Ever since I have had a seat in this House I have heard the Members for agricultural constituencies demanding their pound of flesh. While religiously demanding all that they want to get, not by gentlemen from Jerusalem but by Nabobs—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must keep to the subject, which prescribes guarantees for a certain specific purpose.

Mr. JONES: I am trying to do that as far as I am able. I was only trying to introduce myself. As far as I understand the Amendment, it is the proposition that special facilities should be given to agriculture, and I want to ask why other people, as well as agriculturists, should not be helped. I desire that agriculturists should be helped; nobody desires it more than I do, because I am the son of an agricultural worker in Ireland. I want to see agriculture helped, but I want to know who is going to get the benefit of the help given to agriculture. You are going to make light railways. Who is going to benefit? Who is going to benefit by the increase in the value of the land after you have made the light railways? [HON. MEMBERS: "Everybody!"] No. My Lord Tom Noddy or Sir Dumfunk Mcgregor. I have been surprised to listen to old land-
taxers and some land-nationalisers talking about the Government subsidising private ownership of land, because that is what it really means. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes. We in Silvertown, industrial workers, are to be taxed in order to find the money to add anything from five to twenty-five per cent. to the value of the landlord's land in the rural districts. We fight it and you hon. Gentlemen support it. I am prepared to give every facility to agriculture, provided the people get the benefit. Let us organise agriculture on co-operative and national lines. Let us get the land that belongs to the people, and then we will do all we can to help in the development of the land.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite are quite consistent. They talk about a monopoly of the milk supply, and they have been milking us all the time. If we are to have a real milk supply, let us have a proper supply under municipalised and national control, with proper examination of the milk. All that hon. Members opposite say is, "Let us have your money, and you will not get your milk." In the East End of London we have had bacteriological examination, and 78 per cent. of the milk we receive in our district has been proved to be impure. It comes from the people whom hon. Members opposite support. It comes from the Conservative farmer.

Mr. BECKER: The cows.

Mr. JONES: From the gentlemen who back you up; the gentlemen from the Prudential.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon Member must keep to the subject of the Amendment, which is that a certain sum out of these credits should be allocated to specific purposes.

Mr. BECKER: On a point of privilege, may I ask the hon. Member what he meant when he referred to the Prudential. Is it a slur on my character what he said in regard to the Prudential Assurance Company? I do not wish to see his statement published in the OFFICIAL REPORT without my disclaimer. I have nothing to do with the Prudential Assurance Company.

Mr. JONES: I am not referring to any particular person. An hon. Member opposite—I do not want to mention his
name—referred to milk and the combine in milk, and he was allowed to elaborate that subject.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not pursue this subject. He must get back to the subject of the Amendment.

Mr. JONES: I will get back to my original subject—milk. That is what I first began on. The principle of the Amendment is that one particular industry must be singled out for special treatment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes. I can mention numbers of industries in a worse condition than agriculture. Take the percentage of unemployment read out yesterday by the Minister of Labour, and you will find that agriculture is not so bad as other great industries. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about wages?"] What are wages? Wages are only worth what they will purchase. I can tell the Committee that in the East End of London there are men working in most important industries who are relatively worse off than the agricultural labourer who happens to be working. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I can prove it. What about the dock labourers who only average two days a week and have to pay a rent of 15s. a week?
I do not want to see any man out of work, whether he be an agricultural labourer or a dock labourer, but I object to one particular party in this House trying to make agriculture their special plea and forgetting all the other workers who do not come within that category. I am prepared to support the Amendment in principle, but I want equal treatment all round. I object to hon. Members pleading for special trades. I can plead for a special trade and can prove a good case. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did not you put an Amendment down?"] What is the good of my putting an Amendment down. I could get no right hon. Gentleman to support me. All I want—and I am speaking as a common ordinary person who is not hoping to go to Buckingham Palace in knee breeches—is to see equal treatment all round, and if we are going to subsidise agriculture we must also subsidise the dock labourers and the workers who have to struggle so hard for a living.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. ALLEN: I do not profess to know much about agriculture, but from the speeches to which I have listened in this House I do not think that it is a disqualification to speak on subjects about which one does not know anything. One gets a good deal of information from this House and its precincts, and I had the opportunity lately, and last year, of learning a good deal about the money that is given by the Treasury from year to year for the purpose of developing agriculture in one way or another. I happen to be a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and only yesterday we had the privilege of studying some of the figures in connection with the expenditure on agriculture. I mention this merely to enable the Committee to realise that, after all, there is some money being spent by the Treasury on agriculture. From the speeches to which we have listened this afternoon, one would almost think that neither this nor any other Government had ever done anything for agriculture, and yet in the Paper which is given to us for instruction I suppose that three-fourths of the items are concerned with expenditure by the Treasury on subjects in which agriculture is directly interested.
It is well that the Committee should understand that a great deal of money is given from time to time for the purpose of helping agriculture and kindred subjects. I may mention a few of them. For instance, under the heading, "Seed Testing Station," there was an issue last year from the Treasury of over £21,000, and the loss on that particular establishment for 1921–22 was no less than £19,000. Then for a cattle testing station there was an issue of £25,000, with a loss of about £16,000. Then there is a rat bait factory with the amount £2,881. I suppose that it is for killing rats on farms, but though there was a loss of money by the Government, perhaps there was a gain of money in some other way. Then there is a chalk grinding factory, and a lactose factory with an issue of £39,000 by the Treasury.

Mr. PERCY HARRIS: On a point of Order. Are we considering Government factories on this Amendment?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I was about to call the hon. Member to order.
This is merely an Amendment to allocate part of the guarantees under the Trade Facilities Act to agriculture, and has nothing to do with Government factories.

Sir W. ALLEN: When there is so much grumbling and grasping on the part of agriculturists and so much beseeching the Treasury to grant millions of money for agricultural purposes, I submit that I am entitled to show that the Government are doing something, and have been doing something for agriculture during the last few years. It is not that I am opposed to helping agriculture, but I belong to a part of the country that is contributing equally with other parts of the country in taxes to the Imperial Exchequer, and I want to know why there is all this demand for money for this one particular purpose. I could name many subjects for which we might demand money from the Government, and perhaps we need, it very much more than agriculture. I want to see agriculture prosper and to see the farm labourer do better than ever before. It is for the good of the community that agriculture should be prosperous, but when hon. Members make this demand for agriculture, and state that no money is spent on it, then I think that I am entitled to show that a great deal of money is being spent in that direction. However, I had better not hurt the feelings of hon. Members more than I have done in showing that the Government is already spending a great deal of money on agriculture. This Amendment says that there
shall be allocated exclusively to capita undertakings in agricultural districts"—
and then it goes on to mention various subjects, and it adds,
and such other agricultural purposes as shall be determined.
I want to make a practical suggestion with regard to agriculture, and I shall be glad if the Government will give it attention. It comes particularly under the heading of farming and farming industry. It is not in connection with co-operative factories and things like that, but under the heading "such other purposes." The Government has in its possession the means whereby it can assist the farmer to a very great extent. I am surprised that in the course of Debates, more particularly on matters on which farmers are interested—and there are many representatives of the farming interests in
this House—this subject has not been taken up before now. I refer to the possibility which arises from the increased use of phosphates, which are available for the farmer if he can but secure Government assistance. I refer to the most extraordinary deposits of phosphates which the world has ever known, in the Nauru Islands. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Members laugh.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: That was discussed fully last week.

Sir W. ALLEN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman does not see the point of my reference. The Nauru Islands were discussed, but I am not going to discuss them. I wish to discuss the possibility of the farmers, with the assistance of the Government, getting hold of a manure that will assist agriculture.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Does the question of Nauru come under this Vote, or does it not rather arise on a later Amendment to a further Clause?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question of Nauru is not in order, but, as I understand, the hon. Member is suggesting that something should be done in this connection for the benefit of agriculture.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: As a member of the Committee on Public Accounts, may I ask my hon. Friend whether it would not be better for him to avoid any comment on the Report which we have now actually under consideration?

Sir W. ALLEN: I regret that my right hon. Friend was not in the House when I was speaking.

Sir H. CRAIK: I was.

Sir W. ALLEN: Then my right hon. Friend did not appreciate that I was not dealing with the Report of the Committee, but was merely mentioning the fact that certain money was expended. I think that I am entitled to give my advice in this matter in which the farmer has the possibility of getting something cheaper than he is getting it at the present moment. The Government has that in its control. There is a certain sum allocated for tonnage which the Government can forego. It can bring in hundreds of thousands of tons of this particular phosphate and give it to the farmers as cheaply as possible, and it will assist them beyond anything which
you can do by means of suggestion in this Amendment. Land drainage is all very well, but there is plenty of land in this country thoroughly well drained, and farmers only want facilities to get these manures to their doors. Have light railways by all means, so that farmers can get cheap transport, but what is the good of light railways if you have nothing to carry on them? You might have the produce of your farm, but to have that produce as it ought to be the farms should be cultivated. The Government has an opportunity that no other Government, except those of Australia and New Zealand, has at the moment of taking advantage of that manure. That is a way by which farmers can be directly helped but nothing has been done. No farmers' representative in this House has mentioned the subject. I would like the Secretary to the Treasury to get into touch with the Secretary to the Colonies, and see what can be done to help the farmer in this way. I know that something can be done. I know that farmers of this country have had meetings on this subject, but simply because the Government have not moved the matter has not been pursued.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Does not this Amendment relate to capital undertakings in agricultural districts and the development of agriculture in Britain? It has nothing to do with the farmer as a farmer but with the condition of agriculture in this country.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is wandering very wide of the subject of the Amendment. He must confine himself to the Amendment.

Sir W. ALLEN: I thought that "such other agricultural purposes as shall be determined" were covered by my remarks.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must bear in mind that that is limited by the words "capital undertaking." He must keep his remarks within these words.

Sir W. ALLEN: To me it is an extraordinary thing if the Government cannot, by a capital undertaking, assist the farmer. I would say that a capital undertaking means a contribution by the Government.

Mr. P. HARRIS: On a point of Order. Is it not the case that this is a Bill to authorise the Treasury to contribute towards interest, towards certain loans?

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: This Clause deals with the guarantees under the Trade Facilities Act, and the particular Amendment is designed to allocate a certain part of those guarantees for certain capital undertakings.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: On a point of Order. Surely you raise the capital on the particular guarantee? You get the guarantee of particular interest and the capital is raised?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must keep within reasonable limits of the special purposes mentioned in the Amendment.

Sir W. ALLEN: I should have thought that the supply of manure to farmers by Government capital came within the limits of the Amendment. However, I have made the point that I wanted to make, and I only hope the Treasury and the Colonial Office will put their heads together and assist the farmers in this particular undertaking. It is for the good of everybody that the farmer should be successful, and I hope that some good will come of the suggestion I have made.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I intervene in order to make a brief appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the House. May I remind the Committee of the position in which this legislation stands? The Act expired in the middle of November last, and although it is true that the Advisory Committee continues its work in advising on these guarantees, still I think the whole House will see that substantial difficulties will arise unless we can get this Measure without much delay. I am encouraged to make an appeal on that ground because, apart from certain minor differences of opinion about specific parts of the proposal, there is no substantial difference of opinion regarding this scheme as a whole. The Trade Facilities Act is very largely an agreed Measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is agreed in that it has come down to us from previous Governments, and practically all hon. Members have supported it in some shape or form. A large part
of the discussion on this Amendment has turned on the simple request to set aside for the purposes of agriculture some of the £22,000,000 which will be available. I have pointed out already that to introduce such segregation into the general scheme of Trade Facilities is foreign to the whole purpose and object of this legislation, and, in fact, if you did it at this stage, comparatively late in the day, you would introduce an administrative difficulty of a very substantial kind.
Having gone through all the facts of the situation, and with the utmost sympathy with the Amendment, I am satisfied that the Amendment in practice will defeat the object of its promoters. I want to get rid of the slightest charge of being unsympathetic in this question. Certain questions have been addressed to me to-day by the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) and the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley). As regards the Advisory Committee, the House knows that it consists of three men who are experts in matters of finance. I am afraid that there is a good deal of misunderstanding as to the purpost and the duty of the Advisory Committee. Strictly speaking, if you tried to appoint to this Committee representatives of agriculture or shipbuilding or any other department of industry, you would depart at once from the whole object of having an Advisory Committee of this kind. The whole object is to get an Advisory Committee which will advise you, with all the experience of its members, as to the financial security of a scheme. If you put on representatives of agriculture or of shipbuilding, you are putting on the bench the people who are applying for the guarantees. Their place is in the witness-box to give evidence in support of their proposals; their place is not on the bench in order to decide whether the guarantees should be given or not.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Is it in order, on this Amendment, to discuss the composition of the Advisory Committee?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is making an appeal that we should get rid of this Amendment. The Committee is being told more specifically what the Amendment is for.

Mr. GRAHAM: A large part of the discussion this afternoon has turned upon the
argument that agriculture has not a fair show under the Act, and part of the criticism which has been made is that that is due to the composition, in part at least, of the Advisory Committee. One hon. Member has said that it had no special knowledge of agricultural conditions. My reply is that it is not supposed to have a special knowledge of agricultural conditions. It is there, in the main, as a body to advise on a financial proposition. In an agricultural problem, as indeed in any other problem put before it, the Committee will ask the advice of competent people. The importance of this matter we all realise. The Advisory Committee will take the advice of competent people in agriculture, together with the advice of the Minister of Agriculture. I should think that a promise of that kind puts that part of the question beyond doubt. I was asked certain questions as to what is being done in other Departments, and I was invited to do what is a very difficult thing for any Financial Secretary to the Treasury to do, that is, to make a kind of promise in advance. I have no power to do so. But I make this promise in regard to the drainage schemes, light railways and reclamation—that I will give sympathetic consideration to any proposal which is made by the appropriate Departments in these matters.
I do not want to detain the House because we are already very late. Hon. Members know that there are substantial difficulties which are well beyond the scope of the Advisory Committee under this part of the Bill. May I make a further statement, in conclusion, in appealing to hon. Members not to press the Amendment? I will undertake to make further inquiry into this matter, and to make an additional statement at a later stage in the proceedings on this Bill, as to the steps that we will take to bring the guarantees to the notice of and the better use by the agricultural community. I agree entirely with the point that there is no desire to separate the unemployment which we are trying to meet in the industrial centres from the unemployment or difficulties in the agricultural areas. The two things are clearly linked in my mind. I think I have covered the ground so far traversed by hon. Members. Anybody who is familiar with the history of Trade Facilities legislation in this country will agree that it has never been part of the scheme to segregate
any portion of the guarantee. The only case which we can possibly put to the British public and British trade in a proposal of this kind is the case which enables us to say that any industry, agriculture included, has perfectly free and even access to the Advisory Committee. Beyond that it would be very difficult to go. I hope the Amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr. MOND: After the more reassuring promise of the Financial Secretary and the Minister of Agriculture I do not feel that at this stage I could press the Amendment to a Division. At the same time I am not altogether satisfied that the Government are going to take the steps which I have suggested and which have been suggested from these benches—steps which we consider must be taken to assist agriculture. We will await the Report stage of the Bill with anxiety, and see what the Government will propose in a concrete form in place of the Amendment which I now beg to ask leave to withdraw.

Mr. BECKER: I object to the Amendment being withdrawn.

Mr. HOPKINSON: The speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is most unsatisfactory to those of us who oppose this Amendment root and branch as a wholly bad Amendment, based on a thoroughly unsound principle, and in detail as unsound as it is in principle. I am very sorry indeed to hear the sort of half-promise of the Financial Secretary. The object of this Amendment is, in the first instance, to ensure that very large sums of money will be spent from the trade facilities grant, whether those sums of money are really required or not. The history of the Trade Facilities Act shows conclusively that the greatest difficulty the Committee has is to find some object upon which to pledge the taxpayers' money. All these Amendments are of a similar type, asking for certain minimum guarantees to be given for certain purposes. They are all framed with the intention of ensuring that the taxpayers' credit shall be pledged in very large amount, whether the pledge is required or not.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an
hon. Member who is opposed to an Amendment to object to its withdrawal?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is in order for any hon. Member to object to the withdrawal of any Amendment.

Mr. HOPKINSON: My reason for objecting to the withdrawal is that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has given a sort of half-promise—I do not say a pledge—that he will consider favourably the principle enunciated in this Amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM: There must be no misunderstanding. My hon. Friend must understand that I gave no promise as regards a segregation of the amount of the guarantee. I gave a promise to see what could be done previous to the Report stage regarding the claims of the agricultural community.

Mr. HOPKINSON: In other words, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has given a pledge that he is going to use his influence with the Committee dealing with these problems in order to obtain grants for the benefit of agriculture. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO. no!"] I think I am within the recollection of the Committee in saying so. That is practically what his promise amounts to. When we come to the actual details of this Amendment, the objection to it is even more pronounced. For instance, the very first object mentioned is the provision of light railways for agricultural districts. Everybody knows that in these days it is perfectly ludicrous in a country like this, where distances are short, to build light railways at £10,000 to £20,000 per mile when motor transport is available at infinitely less cost. Again, so far as the reclamation of land is concerned, I am told by my agricultural friends that already there is a very large quantity of land in this country which is not properly farmed. It seems absurd, in these circumstances to spend large sums of money in adding to the area of culturable land when the land already available is not being properly laboured. As regards the question of providing credits for co-operative factories, and for co-operative means of transporting agricultural products and putting them on sale, I am also informed by my agricultural friends, who have had some little experience in this matter, that the chief difficulty in
co-operative factories in agricultural constituencies is—

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 134.

Division No. 22.]
AYES.
[6.48 p.m.


Ackroyd, T. R.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harbord, Arthur
Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Maxton, James


Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)
Harney, E. A.
Middleton, G.


Alstead, R.
Harris, John (Hackney, North)
Millar, J. D.


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Mills, J. E.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mond, H.


Attlee, Major Clement R.
Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Montague, Frederick


Baker, W. J.
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Barclay, R. Noton
Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Barnes, A.
Haycock, A. W.
Morse, W. E.


Batey, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Moulton, Major Fletcher


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Muir, John W.


Black, J. W.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Murray, Robert


Bondfield, Margaret
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Murrell, Frank


Bonwick, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Naylor, T. E.


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfield)
Nichol, Robert


Briant, Frank
Hillary, A. E.
Nixon, H.


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Oliver, George Harold


Bromfield, William
Hobhouse, A. L.
Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
O'Neill, John Joseph


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hodges, Frank
Paling, W.


Brunner, Sir J.
Hogbin, Henry Cairns
Palmer, E. T.


Buchanan, G.
Hogge, James Myles
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Buckie, J.
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Hudson, J. H.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Isaacs, G. A.
Phillipps, Vivian


Chapple, Dr. William A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Charleton, H. C.
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Potts, John S.


Church, Major A. G.
Jewson, Dorothea
Pringle, W. M. R.


Climie, R.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Purcell, A. A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Raffan, P. W.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Raffety, F. W.


Collins, Patrick (Walsall)
Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)
Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford


Comyns-Carr, A. S.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rathbone, Hugh R.


Costello, L. W. J.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Raynes, W. R.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Rea, W. Russell


Crittall, V. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Darbishire, C. W.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)
Richards, R.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Keens, T.
Ritson, J.


Dickson, T.
Kennedy, T.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Duckworth, John
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Robertson, T. A.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Kirkwood, D.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Dukes, C.
Lansbury, George
Robinson, W. E. (Burslem)


Duncan, C.
Laverack, F. J.
Royce, William Stapleton


Dunn, J. Freeman
Law, A.
Royle, C.


Dunnico, H.
Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)
Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)
Lawson, John James
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Egan, W. H.
Leach, W.
Scurr, John


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Lee, F.
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Lessing, E.
Seely, Rt. Hon. Maj.-Gen. J. E. B. (I. of W.)


Falconer, J.
Lindley, F. W.
Sexton, James


Finney, V. H.
Linfield, F. C.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Foot, Isaac
Livingstone, A. M.
Sherwood, George Henry


Franklin, L. B.
Loverseed, J. F.
Shinwell, Emanuel


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lowth, T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Lunn, William
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Gavan-Duffy, Thomas
McCrae, Sir George
Simpson, J. Hope


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sitch, Charles H.


Gillett, George M.
M'Entee, V. L.
Smillie, Robert


Gosling, Harry
Macfadyen, E.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Mackinder, W.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Snell, Harry


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Spence, R.


GreeNall, T.
Maden, H.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mansel, Sir Courtenay
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
March, S.
Stamford, T. W.


Groves, T.
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Stephen, Campbell


Grundy, T. W.
Marley, James
Stewart, J. (St Rollox)


Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Varley, Frank B.
Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)


Sullivan, J.
Viant, S. P.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Sunlight, J.
Vivian, H.
Williams, Lt.-Col. T. S. B. (Kennington)


Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Wallhead, Richard C.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Tattersall, J. L.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)
Windsor, Walter


Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)
Warne, G. H.
Wintringham, Margaret


Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.


Thornton, Maxwell R.
Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.
Wright, W.


Thurtle, E.
Weir, L. M.
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Toole, J.
Welsh, J. C.



Tout, W. J.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Whiteley, W.
Mr. Spoor and Mr. Frederick Hall.


Turner-Samuels, M.
WigNall, James



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.
PowNall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Raine, W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Rankin, James S.


Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rawilnson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hartington, Marquess of
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Harvey, C. M. B. (Aberd'n & Kincardne)
Remer, J. R.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Becker, Harry
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Beckett, Sir Gervase
Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel
Ropner, Major L.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Russell-Wells, Sir S. (London Univ.)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Briscoe, Captain Richard George
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Bullock, Captain M.
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Burman, J. B.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Savery, S. S.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Jephcott, A. R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chapman, Sir S.
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Clarry, Reginald George
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stanley, Lord


Clayton, G. C.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Steel, Samuel Strang


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lamb, J. Q.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cope, Major William
Lane-Fox, George R.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Lorimer, H. D.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
MacDonald, R.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Tichfield, Major the Marquess of


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Waddington, R.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Meller, R. J.
Wells, S. R.


Deans, Richard Storry
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Weston, John Wakefield


Eden, Captain Anthony
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wise, Sir Fredric


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Nesbitt, Robert C.
Wolmer, Viscount


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.


Ferguson, H.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


FitzRoy, Capt. Rt. Hon. Edward A.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Perkins, Colonel E. K.



Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Perring, William George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Philipson, Mabel
Viscount Ednam and Major Colfox.


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Pielou, D. P.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put accordingly, and negatived.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. FRANKLIN: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
subject to the proviso that at least seven million five hundred thousand pounds of the aggregate capital amount of the loans to be guaranteed shall be made available for the guarantee of loans not exceeding ten thousand pounds each.
My proposal is that some further and greater consideration should be given to
the smaller man. In reply to a question I put the other day, I was informed that the number of guarantees of £10,000 and under that had been given during the whole period for which this Act has been in force was four. A subsequent question was put asking whether it was not the practice of the Committee to welcome, as far as they possibly could, these small applications for guarantees. I had myself to dig up the information, which I was forced to purchase in the Cellar of this House, instead of being supplied it
by the Front Bench. I found that these four cases consisted of one of about £4,500, another of £4,700, a third of £10,000, and a fourth of £6,500, a total altogether of about £26,000. It means, when you consider the £50,000,000 at the disposal of the Committee, something like £2,000 given to large undertakings fox each £1 given to the smaller men. That is not right or fair. The credit of the country belongs to us all. The other night it was put to me that I was only doing this for vote catching. I do want to catch votes, but votes in this House sympathetic to the proposition I am putting forward and sympathetic to the principles for which I stand.
The other night we had a most interesting speech from a Member from Scotland who had been carrying on his business during the time he was a representative in this House, and was going back that night to his constituency. I carry on my business every day up to a certain point, because I believe that by keeping in contact with the City and City people I am able to gather opinions there and place them at the disposal of the House. I make no accusation at all against the Advisory Committee, but one of the criticisms that was made upon the Amendment that I am now proposing was that you could not expect an advisory committee of voluntary workers, experts though they might be, to go into this very large number of applications which would be made if you once established and approved of the principle that you should do something for the small man. It was only the other day that we were discussing the question of the Bank Line, a proposition that supplied to the city of Glasgow work to the extent of £1,800,000, about 80 times the amount given to the smaller men all over the country. We have learned a good deal of the Scottish language here, and a good deal of Scottish geography. I put it to the House that there are other villages besides Glasgow, and that those villages ought to have some consideration and that we ought to strive to help to build up the small trades. I am sorry that one of the small trades where a loss was made was the brick-making industry. I had hoped that we might be able to do something for that small trade, which is generally run by a father and his son. Before the War they were able to supply
us with bricks and help forward the housing problem in the cheapest possible way. One must remember that if help is given all over the country—I only take this as an instance—we will save large costs of transport from place to place, and we shall be able to do something to get the cost of housing somewhere near the price the Government think would be desirable.
There are other small industries which could be helped. In some districts you have the small castings carried on by the smaller men. A little help and capital would be extremely valuable to them. If we were able to substitute something for the bankers and the insurance companies who did give large assistance to what I call the private builder, or, what some people might call the speculative builder, undertaking a joint bond for the houses he produced, we should, I think, do something also in the region of supplying the much needed houses. I will not go into detail to that extent, but, like every true Liberal, when I criticise and when I propose an Amendment I want to propose it in a constructive way. I do not want captiously to criticise these trade facilities. We all know an S.O.S. was sent out by the Exports Credits Committee, and by the Committee on trade facilities to show that the people of this country were not taking sufficient advantage of the loans that would be guaranteed, and I want to see whether we cannot suggest some means by which it can be brought to the notice of people that the objections such as they make can be swept away so that we may have a large application for these smaller grants to enable the smaller organisations to be kept in being, building up again from the small beginnings to those big and important businesses that now have no need for any help under the credits scheme.
I feel that firms like Andrew Weir and Harland and Wolff can get their money without going to the Trade Facilities Act; but there are small people who cannot, and there is this much to remember, that when people come to this pool, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) calls it, praying for help, they make it harder for other people and for the Government to raise the money. If it were possible to entrust the big banks with the distribution of these guarantees; if it were not necessary to
drag people up to London; if it were not necessary to employ people who were not in touch with the district and who did not know, as some of the branch bank managers do intimately, the credit and character of those who come to them, we could, I think, do a good deal to obviate the grievances of the small men that they do not get their fair share and part of bank credit. I would venture to suggest that the Government should be prepared to guarantee half the loans made by the banks, that is to say, that, where a certain amount of money is asked for in the shape of a guarantee, the bank should make it in joint account with the Government, the Government guaranteeing their half and the bankers taking their risk with the other. That would take away a suspicion that the banker would simply land his bad debts upon the Government. When it came to a question of realising assets or repaying these guarantees, then the amounts received or the amounts repaid would be apportioned pari passu. Each would get his share. Sometimes people will open their hearts to their bankers but will not open their hearts to strangers whom they do not know. If it were made possible for the bankers to carry on this work in their own districts, surely it would not be an impossibility for a list of the advances as made to be produced for criticism by the Advisory Committee. It is done by every big bank. You see the list of those loans that are made. Any director who knows anything about it, and some of them do, can criticise those loans. Why should it not be done when the Government is making use of the credit of this country? Surely in the hive of industry it is not necessary to draw off the whole of the honey and give it to Glasgow and other large places? Let the honey remain in the hive.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We want the honey.

Mr. FRANKLIN: Yes, you will get the wax. Another advantage is this, that this money, that would be advanced by the banks in joint account with the Government, would be drawn from another of those pools that would not be necessarily in opposition to the Government credit and would double the amount that the bankers could afford to advance. I appeal to the sympathy of the Financial Secretary of the Treasury—and we are
told that he is full of sympathy. It may be easy to dole out in large amounts, but if the smaller amounts of credit that are so necessary were supplied to the smaller men, we might look upon the possibility of rebuilding the prosperity of this country, with Government assistance, in respect of a credit that belongs to us all.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: May I say that I consider this to be an Amendment that is needless, officious and mischievous, and I regret very much the action of the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Franklin) posing as the protector of the poor. In my opinion, it is mere vote-catching. Not only do I consider the Amendment needless, officious and ridiculous, but I consider the hon. Member's speech to be muddlesome on the top of it. He made two observations in a previous speech on this same Bill, and to-day he made the suggestion that applications under this Trade Facilities Bill should come through a branch banker. If he had studied the question and ascertained the facts, instead of rushing in where other angels fear to tread, he would have found that many, if not all, of the applications, at any rate, those which have come under my notice, have come to the authorities through the bankers. We can, therefore, cut away the very foundations upon which the hon. Member has built his desire to help the little men, to give them the additional help which they do not require, because they already possess it. It is already at their disposal. The Amendment says:
subject to the proviso that at least seven million five hundred thousand pounds of the aggregate capital amount of the loans to be guaranteed shall be made available for the guarantee of loans not exceeding ten thousand pounds each.
These millions are already available, as I expect the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will tell us, therefore the Amendment is needless. The hon. Member is posing as the protector of the poor in order that people in his constituency and in other constituencies may think he is the only man in the House who looks after the poor and the small man in this particular matter. On the previous occasion he talked about the little man. I happened to go yesterday down to the Export Credits Committee, and I looked through the accepted amounts that were on the agenda of that Committee. There
were 11 cases accepted, eight of which were under £200, and six of those were under £100.

Mr. FRANKLIN: On a point of Order. Are we not discussing trade facilities, and not export credits?

Mr. SAMUEL: I was trying to point out how the hon. Member persistently muddled every argument he touched.

Mr. FRANKLIN: May I appeal to the Committee—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Samuel), whatever the other hon. Member may have done, must keep to the point himself.

Mr. SAMUEL: My point is this, that it is not right for the hon. Member for Central Hackney to say, as he did say, for I took down his words, "There should be fairer treatment all round." The implication is that the treatment has not been sufficiently fair all round. I am not going to ask him to withdraw that, because I do not suppose he would appreciate the argument, but when he comes down here and says there should be fairer treatment all round, I ask what right has he to say, in effect, that there has not been sufficiently fair treatment? It is a very wrong thing for him to say. If this Amendment be put into effect, it will mean that you will restrict to the small man, who already has available to himself every advantage possible to the big man under the scheme, provided his scheme is sound. Let the hon. Member produce a small man who has come along with a sound scheme and who has been turned down because he is a small man asking for facilities or accommodation of small amount.

Mr. PRINGLE: How many have succeeded?

Mr. SAMUEL: I challenge the hon. Member to produce any scheme in which a small man has come with a small proposition which is good and sound and which has been turned down, if within the limits of the Act. I am certain that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will tell us there is no basis for a statement in a contrary sense. I will go further. Of what good is it for an hon. Member like the hon. Member for Central Hackney,
who says he is a banker, to come here and stand up as a responsible Member of the House and let the world and the City know from him that there is something which is not satisfactory with these schemes, and to tell us that the little man has not been fairly treated? I think it is a most mischievous and unwarrantable statement to make, and it does a great deal of harm. It makes the little man, and the big man too, think that they do not get fair treatment. I myself have said here several times during the last few months that what we seek to do is to let the people of the country know that the two schemes which are under this Bill are in existence, so that people can come along with proper schemes and need have no fear that they will not receive treatment with the greatest secrecy, discretion, fairness and liberality, because the men who are trying to work the schemes are themselves bankers, supplemented by men like ourselves and men from the Chambers of Commerce. The hon. Member who poses as the protector of the poor and tells the public the little man is not helped fairly all round, is doing a great disservice to the country.

Mr. PRINGLE: But is it not true?

Mr. SAMUEL: No. I myself shall take great pleasure in going into the Lobby against the Amendment. I think it my duty, as one who has tried to do his best for one branch of this Bill, to say thus strongly what I feel about the Amendment, and I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will speak equally strongly, so that there shall be no doubt as to the true position of the little man. I am sure that hon. Members on this side of the Committee will join with me in going into the Lobby against this mischievous Amendment.

Mr. ALSTEAD: Before the hon. Member concludes, may I just tell the Committee of a case that has come to my notice this very day? A man in a very large way of business in the fruit-growing industry in the county of Worcester approached the Advisory Committee with a scheme for the resuscitation of a disused brickyard. In the City of Worcester bricks are needed, but this scheme has been turned down by the Advisory Committee, and this is one instance of where a small man has undoubtedly been turned down.

Mr. SAMUEL: What is the security? That is the point. I dare say a proposal or scheme of that sort may have been put before the Advisory Committee. I do not know anything of this matter. Many schemes are put before the Committee no doubt. I am not a member of this Trade Facilities Committee, but I have seen many schemes exhaustively examined before the Export Credits Committee, of which I am a member. Similarly many schemes are put before the banks in a normal way of business, but the fact is that many schemes are not sound. No ground of complaint can lie against either Committee if a scheme is refused because it is not considered sound. If the hon. Member will produce the scheme, I will say, on behalf of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, before he replies, if I may so dare, that he will look into it. He will then be able to see whether it was sound, and whether it was turned down because it was put in by a little man or because it was not a scheme in which public money could be entrusted. The point is whether it was sound or not.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I have the greatest sympathy with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Franklin), but in response to my hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel), I want to assure the Committee at once that this is an Amendment which the Government could not entertain, and I think there are several arguments in support of our attitude. In the first place, the Committee will recall that the whole object of this legislation was to provide a guarantee for works involving capital expenditure which would provide employment, and also be of permanent productive value to this country. That is the general basis of the legislation, but during all the time that these Acts have been in existence, the Advisory Committee has kept a perfectly open door for all classes of applications. It is true that, reviewing the guarantees that so far have been given, they appear very largely to belong to the large undertakings, but I think that is because of the existing conditions of the time. I have already mentioned that this involves a method of capital expenditure. In existing conditions in this country, to a large extent—at all events, in many parts of the country—it is only the big concerns which can face
capital expenditure on a comparatively large scale, and also in existing conditions it is very often only the big concerns which can put down or put up the kind of security which, in the interests of the taxpayers, the Advisory Committee under this legislation necessarily require.
Of itself, I think that argument would explain the allocation of a considerable portion of this guarantee to somewhat larger undertakings, but may I say, in the next place, that the effect of this Amendment is not substantially different from that of the previous Amendment, on which the Committee has just pronounced. My hon. Friend suggests that we should say that £7,500,000 should be devoted to capital undertakings of £10,000 or under. The argument which I used on the former occasion applies to this. Suppose, for example, under existing conditions—and it is very probable indeed—they do not come forward to the tune of anything like £7,500,000, you thereby automatically sterilise a portion of this newer guarantee and place it beyond the reach of other and larger undertakings which would wish to provide employment. That is not the object of the legislation, and I am sure it is not the object of my hon. Friend. But the last, and to my mind the conclusive, reply to the Amendment is this, that there is no discrimination—in point of fact, there could be no discrimination—against the smaller man. One hon. Member raised what was obviously a specific case. I cannot be violent and aggressive in discussing these matters, because, after all, they are cold matters of fact, but what would happen if I were drawn into the discussion of individual cases? The very first thing that happens is to advertise to this country that this individual has not got a guarantee, and that there is something against him. This is not the place to discuss individual cases, the full details of which are only known, and can only be known, to a confidential Advisory Committee, confidential, at all events, as regards the facts of the individual cases concerned. From every point of view, there is no case for this Amendment, and I ask my hon. Friend not to press it.

Mr. ALSTEAD: May I draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that we discussed one very large undertaking specifically in regard to the Sudan?

Mr. GRAHAM: The short reply to that is that the Sudan Guarantee, no doubt, is a great issue, but it has, in reality, nothing to do with Trade Facilities at all.

Mr. PERCY HARRIS: I quite agree with the Financial Secretary that it is undesirable to single out certain firms and advertise them as not being successful traders. Obviously, if a firm were advertised to the world as having been refused trade facilities, it would injure their credit. I was sorry the Financial Secretary was so unsympathetic towards the very reasonable Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Franklin). He stated his case most moderately, and his reasons, I venture to suggest, were most sound and in striking contrast to the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel), who described the speech of my hon. Friend as officious, ridiculous and mischievous. I think the hon. Member was rather officious in intervening between my hon. Friend and the Financial Secretary, who was quite able to look after himself. I think there, is a very strong case, and a very strong feeling, in the country that the advantage of these various Acts goes largely to big railway companies and big industries which are quite able to raise the money in the open market, and whose financial position is so strong that they can always get their money underwritten, and the public are quite willing and ready to invest in their undertakings. All that has happened with these big concerns is that they have been saved a half per cent. I very much question whether these trade facilities, as at present administered, have produced any work at all. Most of these enterprises would have been started anyhow. It is the new businesses that are finding it very difficult at the present time to get started.
The hon. Member for Central Hackney suggested starting brickfields and cement industries. I have the case of a company—I will not mention the name—that actually did put forward a very sound proposition to develop the cement industry, which, at present in this country, is almost a monopoly. One of the difficulties in building houses at the present time is the high cost of cement, because local authorities are not allowed to import foreign cement. I happen to represent an East London constituency,
and many of the industries there are working full-time. Many of the companies manufacturing furniture are fully occupied. They have as many men employed as their plant and buildings will allow, but, unfortunately, the cabinet-making industry is very badly organised, and very great difficulty is found in getting the necessary trade facilities to extend plant and buildings to develop output. There is a practical example of finding work for the unemployed, because there is no industry in the country that requires more labour for its output than the furniture industry. A great number of carpenters could be easily absorbed in the cabinet industry, and a great number of cabinet-makers are out of work because of the difficulty of employers in getting the necessary credit to buy the timber required, owing to the very high cost of wood, and the high cost of borrowing money in small industries.
I am not going to say that my hon. Friend should necessarily press this Amendment to a Division, but I think it would be a very sound thing for the Financial Secretary, on behalf of the Government, to accept the principle that these facilities ought not to go to help old companies that can get plenty of credit, and very often have ample capital, but should go rather to new firms to enable them to get going, and to stimulate new industries, rather than old ones. I suggest they should Lake a certain amount of risk. What is wanted at the present time is to give a fillip to the small man, to assist new industry, to try to get new ideas, new machinery, new inventions and new methods into some of our old trades, which had a rude shock owing to trade depression as a result of the War. We want to revive them. Many of these industries are badly organised, and have not much financial knowledge as to how to get the money from the ordinary banking sources. I should like to see under this Act far better paid organisation in industrial areas. We have the Employment Exchanges, for instance. They have knowledge of the men out of work and of what trades they belong to. The Employment Exchanges ought to be able to find in every area what is the cause of trade depression, why factories are working short time, and whether it is due to lack of capital. In many cases, it is due to lack of capital. Far more capital is re-
quired now, owing to the increased price of products to run a factory. Wool has gone up to double the price it was before the War. The same with cotton and with timber. Many trades find all their capital occupied in carrying their necessary stock for trade purposes, and are unable either to extend their factories or put in fresh plant. All I would ask of the Financial Secretary is to use his great influence to change the bias of the Committee, to get them to look favourably upon small industries and small companies, rather than go on still further strengthening combines, and assisting big companies to get bigger and bigger, and, very likely, sooner or later squeeze out the small people.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: As a rule, I find myself so much in agreement with the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel), and have so much admiration for the arguments he puts forward, that it is with some regret I cannot entirely follow him in his denunciation of this Amendment. In fact, I have a very great sympathy with the object which, I believe, the Proposer has in view. I feel very strongly that if something could be done for the small men in this country, it would be a very great help, indeed. My difficulty is, when I come to the practical application of an Amendment of this kind. We are faced, it seems to me, with two difficulties; in the first place, the actual practical difficulty of a Committee of this kind making grants to small people at all. That is a difficulty which must arise. It is true that it has been proposed by the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Franklin) that this should be done by means of the banks, but here, again, I am up against the difficulty that the banks themselves are not able to lend all the money they want; and, secondly, it would, in effect, only be, I am afraid, doubling the amount of money which the banks would lend on the terms which they would lend at the present moment, and that, I fear, would not attain the object the hon. Member has in view. It is the practical difficulty of applying what he has in mind that hampers me. There is no doubt whatever that these very large firms and companies which have got grants to build ships and other things under the Trade Facilities Act, would have been, in many cases, per-
fectly able to raise that money without any guarantee at all. I do not want to quote names, but it is manifest that any company whose name is well known throughout the City of London and throughout the country as a large holder of ships, is perfectly able, to raise money in the open market. It may be that with the backing of the Government they are able to raise money, let us say, at 5 per cent. instead of 6 or 7 per cent., and that may be a gain to the nation, if it means by doing so they have pressed on work, and thereby provided employment, which otherwise they would not have done. It may be a gain, but I very much doubt if a gain of that kind is worth considering a against the danger of applying State guarantees for that kind of loan.
On the other hand, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney that the small man is in a very great difficulty in this country at the present time. It is easy to say that he can go to the banks. It is equally possible, perhaps, to say he can go to the Trade Facilities Committee, but, in effect, let us consider whether he could really do either of these things. The bankers do not, and it is not their business, to lock up money for any long period of time. They cannot do it. They have to consider their depositors, and the claims made upon them. They ought not to take more than ordinary bankers' risks, and that certainly does not mean locking-up money for several years. The small man whom, I gather, my hon. Friend has in view, has probably never heard of the Trade Facilities Act in his life. It is perfectly true to say he could apply, but in practice he does not apply, and it is a difficulty that, I think, it is well should be drawn to the attention of the Committee, if by any chance there is any Amendment—which, frankly, I do not see at the present moment—by which they could meet this want, so that the small man, who is in a difficulty and cannot raise the money, should be assisted. It is the little man whom I am very anxious—and I think my hon. Friend will not accuse me of seeking votes—should be assisted, but I do say there are practical difficulties of applying it, and I do not think more can be done than draw attention to it. I think the object of my hon. Friend the Mover of the
Amendment has probably been achieved by the Debate we have already had, and I agree with the Financial Secretary it would not be worth while to carry this very much further.

Mr. PRINGLE: I was greatly impressed by the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Franklin), to which the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) made no answer. When the hon. Gentleman addresses the House, as a rule, he endeavours to convince the House by argument. When he resorts to abuse, violence, and vituperation he naturally creates a suspicion among Members accustomed to his use of argument that he has a very weak case indeed. I think the hon. Gentleman himself could not but be surprised when he found this afternoon he was listened to with less than the usual respect. After all my hon. Friend put forward a perfectly fair, moderate, and reasonable case. He drew attention to a matter which was obvious to anybody who had looked over the proceedings of this Committee. It was that the unsuccessful applicants were not those who represented the large undertakings, which, in most cases, were undertakings able to raise money without any Government guarantee at all. It has been a matter of some concern to hon. Members that the smaller undertakings have been conspicuous by their absence.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: That is true, but the implication that the smaller undertakings have not been sufficiently fairly dealt with is not true. They have been dealt with fairly. My point was that may they have not got sufficient help; but it does not follow that there was a lack of fair-play to the small men. Besides, too, if small men have not obtained guarantees it was simply because they have not applied.

Mr. PRINGLE: I think my hon. Friend is using the word "fair-play" in a double sense. You may say that the money has not been fairly allocated, but at the same time you may not suggest that there has been any bias or partiality on the part of the Committee. When, however, my hon. Friend talked about a fair allocation of the money he meant that it had not been distributed as it ought to have been, equally to the small
as to the bigger men. The word "fair" or "fairly" is used entirely in that neutral sense, without any implication of partiality or any oblique motive on the part of members of the Committee. I repeat that the hon. Member's implication was entirely misplaced, and he did himself less than justice by addressing the Committee in the heated terms he used. The fact of the matter is—and it is regrettable—that the small people have not had their share as we should have liked them to have. The hon. Gentleman will not quarrel with that.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: It was suggested that the smaller men have not been fairly dealt with. That is not so. For example, on my own Committee yesterday out of 11 cases of accepted applications, eight were under £200, and six of those eight were for sums under £100.

Mr. PRINGLE: I am not dealing with the exporters at all. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend would have made no attack upon the Export Credits Committee in this matter. We are dealing simply and solely with the Trade Facilities Committee, and if you examine the records of that Committee you do not find anything corresponding to the hon. Member's experience in regard to this matter. The analogy is entirely inapplicable in this instance. But there is the general consideration that ought to be present to the minds of the Committee and to this Committee of the House in considering this matter. There is far too great a tendency to aggrandise the big men. Big Business has too large a share in all these things, and Big Business is crushing the small business out, and it is not a good thing from the point of view of the country as a whole. In these circumstances it should be the duty of a Committee of this kind which gives the guarantee of the State, when it finds the small man come to it, to look with a special benevolence upon his application. We do not find any evidence that the Trade Facilities Committee does that. Unfortunately we cannot criticise the Committee. It is an irresponsible one. It is a body that has no responsibility to this House. Individual cases cannot be discussed here. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would, I believe, refuse to discuss the action of the Committee in individual circumstances. It
is an unfortunate organisation altogether. I do not like irresponsible committees or boards, and it is only owing to the peculiar circumstances of this particular scheme that it is allowed to go; but things cannot be wondered at when you think when you have an irresponsible body consisting, it may be, of eminent bankers and others of the same type—it cannot, I say, be expected that there should not be some doubt as to the transactions with the facts as they have been proved to be in relation to the comparative treatment of big business and the small man.
The object of this Amendment is not necessarily to fix a hard and fast limit to the amount to be given to the small man comparatively to the large man. It is to draw the attention of the Treasury to what has happened during the past few years, and to make an appeal to the Treasury to see that this proportion is not continued. We ask the hon. Gentleman to see, so far as possible, that encouragement is given to the smaller enterprises so that they may not be crushed out in this period of depression—that where you have an enterprising man, it may be with small capital, and he can put forward security, that this man, simply because he is a small man, should not be overlooked by this Committee but should have his chance. We believe that if this class of men are allowed to develop what projects they have in mind that as great a proportionate contribution will be made towards the relief of unemployment than by the larger business men.

Mr. FRANKLIN: I desire, in view of what has been said, to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed" and "No."]

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I am rather surprised at some of the speeches I have heard this evening. It is quite a different proposition which the House is dealing with when the money belongs to the State to that, on the other hand, when you are dealing with money that belongs to yourself. I want to give these facilities to the big and to the small man. Take the question of this Amendment. It wishes to set out £7,500,000 under the Trade Facilities Act to be allocated for the purpose of loans not exceeding in each case £10,000.
Suppose you cannot lend the money easily enough for the projects thrown out to-night. Take my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris). I have had the pleasure of knowing him for a good many years, and I have always looked upon him as a man of good business acumen. He will pardon me when I say that I begin to wonder whether the opinion that I have had is correct or otherwise, because I would not have thought, in the ordinary course of events, that if anyone wanted to borrow money for any business undertaking he would have lent it unless he was satisfied that the money was secured. Suggestions have been thrown out that the advantages of this Act have been given to the larger, and not to the smaller man. We challenge that statement. I do not think anything of the sort has been done, and I would be no party to assist a policy of that description. Hon. Members have no right to give away money belonging to the State unless they are satisfied as to the security. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] I am very glad it is agreed, because it is a very different suggestion that emanated from one of the hon. Members on the other side.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We have withdrawn the Amendment. What is the matter?

Sir F. HALL: I was wondering what was the matter! I am wondering whether we are losing all sense of proportion in order to advertise to the rest of the country that they should come along and claim money that belongs to the State in the manner they could not do under any circumstances with their own money. Take these large concerns of which we have heard. They have been borrowing huge amounts from the Treasury under the Trade Facilities Act. I am glad to say the State has lent it, because, as the Financial Secretary knows full well, without the money which has been lent to some of these concerns needful and necessary work would never have been carried out. I have not been interested in any concerns that have borrowed money from the State under the Trade Facilities Act; but there are big concerns—and I do not want to question them—who have had large amounts of money, which it is well known have been advanced by the State. What does it all mean? [HON. MEMBERS:
"Agreed!"] If they had not borrowed the money work would not have been found, because it is only the big concerns that are able to utilise the labour, and by the exercise of brains—which, unfortunately, I do not always find prevailing amongst some of the hon. Members who are so ready to interrupt—do things with the money. I always think when there is a vast amount of interruption that those who have brought forward proposals are dissatisfied with the proposals they have brought forward. I hope the suggestion is not going out either to small or big men that the bulk of the Members of this House are prepared to lend the State's money unless the guarantee is sufficient. I wonder what would happen if hon. Members found on investigation, and if the papers showed, that such and such a concern had not been able to carry out its obligations and had been lent money under the Trade Facilities Act? I could quite understand hon. Members in all parts of the House

getting up and challenging the right of the Government—for whom I hold no brief—to lend money without a satisfactory guarantee. I hope some measure will be arranged which will be fair to the small men. I want no favouritism. If the hon. Member for Central Hackney was desirous of bringing this subject before the small men then he has attained that object. I cannot help thinking, with the knowledge I have of the hon. Gentleman opposite, that he will endorse the views put forward, and especially the views of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) in regard to not relaxing the care and attention which should be exercised by every Department of State.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 114.

Division No. 23.]
AYES.
[8.3 p.m.


Ackroyd, T. R.
Dunnico, H.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Egan, W. H.
Jewson, Dorothea


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)
England, Lieut. Colonel A.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)


Alstead, R.
Finney, V. H.
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Foot, Isaac
Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)


Baker, W. J.
Franklin, L. B.
Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merioneth)


Barclay, R. Noton
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Barnes, A.
Gavan-Duffy, Thomas
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Batey, Joseph
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Gilbert, James Daniel
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Black, J. W.
Gillett, George M.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)


Bondfield, Margaret
Gosling, Harry
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)


Bonwick, A.
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Kay, Sir R. Newbald


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Kedward, R. M.


Broad, F. A.
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Keens, T.


Bromfield, William
Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Kennedy, T.


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
GreeNall, T.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Groves, T.
Kirkwood, D.


Buchanan, G.
Grundy, T. W.
Lansbury, George


Buckie, J.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Laverack, F. J.


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Law, A.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hardie, George D.
Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)


Cape, Thomas
Harney, E. A.
Lawson, John James


Charleton, H. C.
Harris, John (Hackney, North)
Leach, W.


Clarke, A.
Harris, Percy A.
Lee, F.


Climie, R.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Lessing, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Lindley, F. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Linfield, F. C.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
Livingstone, A. M.


Comyns-Carr, A. S.
Haycock, A. W.
Loverseed, J. F.


Costello, L. W. J.
Hayday, Arthur
Lowth, T.


Cove, W. G.
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Lunn, William


Crittall, V. G.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
McCrae, Sir George


Darbishire, C. W.
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
M'Entee, V. L.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Macfadyen, E.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfield)
Mackinder, W.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hillary, A. E.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Dickson, T.
Hirst, G. H.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Dodds, S. R.
Hobhouse, A. L.
Maden, H.


Duckworth, John
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Mansel, Sir Courtenay


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hogbin, Henry Cairns
March, S.


Dukes, C.
Hudson, J. H.
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Duncan, C.
Isaacs, G. A.
Marley, James


Dunn, J. Freeman
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)


Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Ritson, J.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Maxton, James
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Thornton, Maxwell R.


Middleton, G.
Robertson, T. A.
Thurtle, E.


Millar, J. D.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Tinker, John Joseph


Mills, J. E.
Robinson, W. E. (Burslem)
Toole, J.


Mond, H.
Royce, William Stapleton
Tout, W. J.


Montague, Frederick
Royle, C.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Morris, R. H.
Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.
Turner, Ben


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Scrymgeour, E.
Varley, Frank B.


Morse, W. E.
Scurr, John
Viant, S. P.


Moulton, Major Fletcher
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)
Vivian, H.


Muir, John W.
Seely, Rt. Hon. Maj.-Gen. J. E. B. (I. of W.)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Murray, Robert
Sexton, James
Waish, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Murrell, Frank
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)


Naylor, T. E.
Sherwood, George Henry
Warne, G. H.


Nichol, Robert
Shinwell, Emanuel
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Nixon, H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Oliver, George Harold
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H. (Cardiff, E.)


Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)
Simpson, J. Hope
Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.


Paling, W.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Welsh, J. C.


Palmer, E. T.
Sitch, Charles H.
Westwood, J.


Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)
Smillie, Robert
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Whiteley, W.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)
WigNall, James


Phillipps, Vivian
Snell, Harry
Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)


Ponsonby, Arthur
Spence, R.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Potts, John S.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Williams, Lt.-Col. T. S. B. (Kennington)


Pringle, W. M. R.
Spero, Dr. G. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Purcell, A. A.
Spoor, B. G.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Raffan, P. W.
Stamford, T. W.
Windsor, Walter


Raffety, F. W.
Stephen, Campbell
Wintringham, Margaret


Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Rathbone, Hugh R.
Sullivan, J.
Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.


Raynes, W. R.
Sunlight, J.
Wright, W.


Rea, W. Russell
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Rees, Sir Beddoe
Tattersall, J. L.



Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Richards, R.
Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)
Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. T.


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Griffiths.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Raine, W.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Romer, J. R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Harvey, C. M. B. (Aberd'n & Kincardne)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ropner, Major L.


Barnettm Major Richard W.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Russell-Wells, Sir S. (London Univ.)


Becker, Harry
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Savery, S. S.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hiffe, Sir Edward M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Jackson, Lieut. Colonel Hon. F. S.
Somerville, A A. (Windsor)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthberl
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Bullock, Captain M.
Jephcott, A. R.
Stanley, Lord


Burman, J. B.
Johnson, Sir L. (Waithamstow, E.)
Steel, Samuel Strang


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Cassels, J. D.
Lamb, J. Q.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sutcliffe, T.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Lorimer, H. D.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Chapman, Sir S.
MacDonald, R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Clayton, G. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Waddington, R.


Cope, Major William
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Ward, LI.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Meller, R. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wells, S. R.


Deans, Richard Storry
Nesbitt, Robert C.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wragg, Herbert


Ferguson, H.
Penny, Frederick George
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.



Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Perring, William George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Phillpson, Mabel
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Frederick Hall


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pielou, D. P.
and Mr. A. M. Samuels.


Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put accordingly, and negatived.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words
subject to the proviso that the Treasury shall require, in the case of guarantees in respect of loans raised by limited liability companies, an annual independent audit of the accounts during the period of the guarantee.
This Amendment has for its object the provision of additional safeguards to the State. Opinions have been expressed in the earlier stages of this Bill with regard to the risks that are being run. The Financial Secretary, in dealing with those risks, referred to the powers of the Advisory Committee, and also indicated that there was an insurance fund of some sort to deal with those risks. I do not wish to say one word of criticism either with regard to the performances of the Advisory Committee or its capacity to deal with those questions in the future. But the risks and liabilities do not cease at the moment when those claims have been passed by the Advisory Committee. It is essential that there should be some further safeguards provided. It might be done in various ways.

It being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under STANDING ORDER No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

THAMES COXSERVANCY BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move to leave out the word "now" and, at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
I hope the House will give me indulgence because the matters with which I have to deal are rather detailed, and inevitably involve a certain number of figures. It will, however, be my desire
to be as brief and clear as possible. In the first place I wish to submit to the House, in dealing with an authority of this character, that it is exceedingly desirable that great care should be exercised before further powers are conferred, and particularly powers which relate to finance. The Thames Conservancy is one of those bodies controlled by indirectly elected persons. There is very little popular control over its doings, and very little public knowledge as to its policy and the details of its administration. Consequently it is desirable that the House should not lightly confer upon it new powers.
The present financial arrangements are determined by the Conservancy Act of 1921, and the powers conferred by that Act expire as things stand on 31st December, 1925. The present Bill comes into force, if passed, including these financial provisions, on 1st January, 1925, and thereby the lapsing of the existing Act is anticipated by 12 months. The case for the Conservancy, as hon. Members well know from a document received from the promoters of this Bill, is based on the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Thames and Lea Conservancies, but the Report of that Committee is not by any means conclusive as to the estimates which are the basis of this Bill. The Report of that Committee dealt, with things as they are, whereas the important aspects of this Bill particularly to the water consumers and the owners of the Metropolitan water undertakings is not in things as they are now, but very much in things as they will be after the expiry of the present Act on 31st December, 1925.
May I draw the attention of the House to the expenditure of the Board as it has steadily progressed since the year 1913. The revenue account expenditure of the Board in 1913 was £56,000. In 1914 it advanced to £59,000, and in 1921 to £111,590. In 1922 it went down to £107,735, and the estimate of the Inter-Departmental Committee as to the revenue which the Board ought to secure is £150,000; those increases are, as I think the House will agree, substantial. The Committee's estimate, that is to say, the estimate of the necessary expenditure of the Conservancy reported upon by the Inter-Departmental Committee, was based on maintenance account works for the purpose of maintaining the river in a proper
state £63,000. Then there are arrears of maintenance works—and this is important because it was largely the case for the increased contributions to the Conservancy conferred upon them by the Act of 1921—arrears estimated over a period of five years, the annual charge of which is £26,000; and the prevention of pollution £10,000, a cost which in the ordinary way would fall upon the county authorities and not upon the Conservancy, and, therefore, the county authorities are saving that amount.
Then comes the Head Office expenses and general charges, £36,000, the service of loans, sinking fund for loans for works of a capital nature, £15,000, making a total expenditure on revenue account of £150,000. That is the estimate of the Inter-Departmental Committee, and I think with that estimate the Conservancy was substantially in agreement. I understand that when the Inter-Departmental Committee prepared that estimate the accounts for 1922 of the Conservancy had not been completed, and therefore the Committee had to accept an estimate of the probable expenditure of the Conservancy for the year 1922, and the actual expenditure of the Conservancy for that year turned out to be £26,000 less than the estimated expenditure was as considered by the Inter-Departmental Committee. Therefore, to that extent the figures upon which the Report of that Committee was based were swollen, and the House ought to take that into consideration in dealing with the merits of this Bill.
But there is another factor. There was an error, so far as one can see, in the conclusions of the Inter-Departmental Committee. There was some confusion as to maintenance works of a capital nature which fell on the maintenance account, and another part which fell on the capital account. Without going into the details of that particular transaction let me say, so far as my own research has revealed, and also on the authority of the Comptroller of the London County Council, who is no light authority on this subject, there was an over-estimate of £21,000 in the estimates of the Inter-Departmental Committee when they considered what was a fit and proper revenue which the Conservancy ought to obtain. Therefore there ought to be a
reduction immediately of £21,000 on those estimates. After 1925 the arrears of maintenance works should have been completed, and therefore, after that time, the annual charge of £26,000 in respect of arrears of maintenance work ceases to be part of that estimate, and with the £21,000, this makes a total reduction of £47,000 below the estimate of the Inter-Departmental Committee. That, of course, is a very important factor in the matter.
The Bill does not propose to legalise an estimated revenue of £150,000, but, in reality, proposes an estimated revenue of £165,000, for it goes on the basis of the revenues which the Conservancy enjoyed in 1922, and it adds £2,500 to them as against the counties and county boroughs, who in the ordinary way would be pollution authorities, and 12,000 as against the riparian authorities, who receive considerable commercial and trading benefits from the operations of the Conservancy Board; so that even to the estimate of £150,000, which I submit is excessive, or will be excessive after 1925, when this present Act expires, to the amount of £47,000—even to that figure there have been added new sources of revenue, and to that extent the Metropolitan water consumer is not to be relieved through the Metropolitan water undertaking. I submit to the House that the financial basis of the Bill, strictly on the basis of the Inter-departmental Committee's Report, subject to the reservations which I have indicated, ought, after the expiry of the present Act, to be £150,000 expenditure on revenue account as estimated by the Inter-departmental Committee, less the error of £21,000, and less the £26,000, because the arrears will have been completed, making a net revenue of £103,000 or, say, roughly, £100,000.
That is 66⅔ per cent. in excess of the pre-War revenue of the Thames Conservancy, which I submit is not an unreasonable increase, having regard to the nature of its functions and to the relative costs of ordinary local government services, as compared with pre-War costs. I should assume that at the moment the general expenditure of local authorities is probably not more than two-thirds in excess of pre-War expenditure on the average, and I cannot see why this body should have this enormous expenditure sanctioned. In 1922 the Metropolitan
Water Board provided no less than £112,500 out of the revenue of £150,000 of the Thames Conservancy. That £112,500 from the Metropolitan water consumers was an increase of 150 per cent. on the £45,000 which obtained prior to the Conservancy's Act of 1921, and I wish to submit that that proportion of the Conservancy's revenue coming from the Metropolitan water consumer is excessive. It means that the water-drinkers of London—we hear a great deal about other drinkers, but after all, every Member of this House drinks London water, and I submit that we are entitled to consideration—the Metropolitan water consumer to that extent is, in my opinion, being bled white in the interests of an institution about which we do not know a great deal, and which has many other responsibilities besides that of allowing the Water Board to take water from the river.
Do not let it be thought that I am in love with the Metropolitan Water Board. I am not. I am not in love with any of these bodies with which London is cursed as the result of the attitude of Parliament. I would abolish them all, and merge their functions in one authority for the large scale services in Greater London. We have, however to look after the interests of the water consumers of London, even though, we are not in love with the Metropolitan Water Board. Let me relate to the House the record of the increased demands of the Conservancy upon the Water Board. I am myself a member of the Lea Conservancy Board, and I imagine that the Thames Conservancy Board is much the same sort of institution; and my membership of that board makes mo more than ever convinced that it ought to be abolished. They are both doing very well out of the Water Board. Up to 1911 the annual contribution of the Water Board was £33,000, and I want the House to note the progress that the Conservancy has made at the expense of the London water drinker. In 1912 it was increased to £40,000. It rose in 1920 to £45,000, and it was then regarded—and 1920 was somewhat of a peak year in costs—as a final settlement of the matter between the Water Board and the Thames Conservancy; but in 1921 the Conservancy came up smiling again, and on this occasion got the sanction of Parliament, apparently, to jump from £45,000 to £112,500.
That increase was limited to five years, but the Conservancy is now trying to extend it, I think, to 1941, and to establish that it cannot be varied within a period of 10 years, and then by a decision of a Minister and not by a decision of this House.
It may be argued that the Conservancy gives London water, and I can imagine that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Henley (Captain Terrell) is waiting to pounce on this Bill for reasons antagonistic to mine. Therefore, if I may say so, we are in doubtful company. The hon. and gallant Member may argue that the up-river authorities ought not to pay because they would be asked to pay for the fact of London getting a good and pure water supply. I am going to assert that the water of the River Thames is no man's property, is no body's property. It is, if I may say so, a natural right of the people of London to have access to that water for drinking purposes. After all, we have had it from time immemorial. We used to get all kinds of diseases as a consequence, but it is a right which London has enjoyed from time immemorial, and there ought to be no interference with the right of London to drink that water. Certainly the Conservancy has no actual prescriptive right in the water of the Thames. Whether the Conservancy existed or not, the water would continue to flow down the river to the sea, and, therefore, the Conservancy has no more prescriptive right to it than have the people of London, to whom it really belongs by natural right and because we are here in such large numbers.
If it be argued that the Conservancy preserves the river from pollution, and that, therefore, it is benefiting the London water consumer, that is an argument which is entitled to respectful consideration, though I am not sure that it is conclusive. But even if that argument be put forward, it is to be pointed out that pollution only accounts for about one-tenth of the expenditure of the Conservancy—I think actually for only £10,000; and, as a matter of fact, if the Conservancy did not exist, that cost would fall upon the counties and county boroughs of the riverside. They are the appropriate bodies to bear the cost of the prevention of pollution, in addition to
their local sewage farms and sewage disposal organisations, because London itself has its main drainage system, for which it has to pay, and it is only reasonable that the counties and boroughs up-river should pay for theirs. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that they should be asked to pay, not merely the 25 per cent. of the cost proposed in the Bill, but that they should be asked to pay more than that towards the cost of the prevention of pollution.

Captain BOWYER: May I ask a question? I do not want to interrupt the argument of the hon. Member, because in the main I am with him, but would he tell me why people in the north of Buckinghamshire, 60 miles north of the river, should contribute by paying a rate, while people in Bedfordshire, one mile away, should not contribute?

Mr. MORRISON: The hon. and gallant Member has questioned me on a point of geography that I cannot follow at the moment. If he had asked me as to the geography of the county of London, I might have answered him right away, but I am afraid I do not carry the map in my head to that point. I believe, however, that there is a provision in the Bill, that the riverside parishes pay in a certain respect, and perhaps not the whole county. There is a case on the analogy of what the Inter-Departmental Committee propose should be done with London in respect of the Lea. They propose to make the whole county pay, and there there is an analogy for making these counties pay. Let it be remembered that, if the Thames Conservancy did not exist, the counties would have to bear this expense, and whether a certain point in a county is one mile away from the river or three miles away, they pay for their sewage works. There is a liability on the authority to establish sewage works which will prevent the sewage of those districts from flowing into the river. But that is a different function from the function of a pollution authority, which in a sense is the function of the county authority, namely, to prevent the urban and rural districts from allowing sewage to go into the river.

Mr. FRANK GRAY: We pay a great deal towards it.

Mr. MORRISON: I think the hon. Member's authority pays for its ordinary sewage disposal but not for the prevention—for, so to speak, the oversight of the people who might pollute the river by the pollution authority, which in this case is the Thames Conservancy. But in any case it is not unreasonable that these authorities should pay their proper quota to the expenses of the prevention of pollution. Similarly, there is a proposal in the Bill, with which I am in agreement, except that I do not think it is enough, that the riparian authorities who gain from the river as a pleasure resort should make a proper contribution. Oxford, Maidenhead and places of that kind net a great amount of trade from the river, just as Ramsgate and Margate do from their position on the coast of Kent, and they obtain a considerable living from the fact that the river is there and is kept pleasant and attracts a good deal of pleasure traffic, to the advantage of the constituents of hon. Members, and I am sure we are very glad they should have that advantage, but they ought to pay a proper contribution to the expenses of the authorities.
I would ask the House to consider the present constitutional position. The basis of taxation and representation is all upside down. As a matter of fact, the Committee itself records the fact that the Water Board, with only two representatives, provided 76 per cent. of the Conservators' revenue in 1921. It is recorded by the London County Council that the Water Board consumers, who contribute about three-fourths of the revenue of the conservancy, have only one-fourth of the representation on the conservancy, taking the Water Board, the City Corporation and the county council together, and from that point of view London is paying the greater part of the expense and the authorities outside London are getting the bulk of the representation. The authorities which would in the ordinary way be the pollution authorities are only being asked to pay £2,500 together, which is an average of £227 each, and it is not enough. They ought to be made to pay more. Similarly with the riparian authorities. I am sorry to make this difficulty about the Bill, but we have to keep hammering away at these mysterious bodies that no one understands, which have been constituted by Parliament and then left to drift. There is no popular
control over them. The county council appoints its representatives, one of the ablest of whom is the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Gilbert), but that is the end of it. We hear no more about it except that my hon. Friend, with other members of the conservancy, makes an annual report to the council, which is more or less unread, but there is no popular control over it. It is the same as the Water Board and the Lea Conservancy, and our view is, that these special bodies ought to be abolished once for all, and the people ought to be given power to rule. Meantime, it is there and we have to watch it, and the London Labour Members will increasingly watch bodies of this kind.
Our case is briefly that the estimated expenditure, on which the financial provisions of the Bill are based, is excessive, and there ought to be a very big cut, to the extent of about a third in the estimated expenditure. Secondly the London water consumer, through the Water Board, is paying too much to the expenses of these authorities. It is being regarded as a milch cow, from which unlimited wealth may be drawn in the interests of the people who get the benefits but do not pay. Thirdly, the other authorities who derive benefits, get substantial advantages and are not paying for the upkeep of the conservancy. For the reasons I have given, and because this is a body which clearly is under loose financial control, if it really means these Estimates, it ought to be pulled up very sharply by the House. I should not want so much to pull it up if it were a popularly elected local authority that the ratepayers could pay up.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: It is.

Mr. MORRISON: No, this is not a popularly elected local authority. It is a sort of Soviet and is not popularly elected.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: There are nearly 20 members elected by the up river authorities, which are popularly elected bodies. I am elected by one of them.

Mr. MORRISON: I am sorry if I trod on the hon. Member's corns. He is a member of the Conservancy, but in the main the people he represents on the Conservancy know no more than the dead about the doings of the Thames Conservancy Board. You get the representation of the representatives of the repre-
sentatives of the representatives, and you call that a popular election. I do not. It is worse than the House of—no, I must not say that. But there it is. For these reasons I submit that there is a good case for the rejection of the Bill, and I hope the House will take the matter very seriously and consider the Amendment favourably, so that the conservancy may think a little harder about the financial basis of its organisation.

Mr. SNELL: I beg to second the Amendment.
We desire, representing the point of view for which we stand, to submit that the Bill is in effect unjust in the charge that it seeks to impose upon the water consumers of London and that it is inequitable in its discrimination as between one authority, or one set of consumers, and another. It seeks in effect to make permanent in 1925 a condition which was conceded in 1921 for a limited period only, and in a time of very great emergency. That is our first charge that, getting from this House at that period, for a strictly limited time and under exceptional conditions, a certain status, this Bill now proposes to make permanent what the House only conceded as being applicable to a given time. Secondly, we hold that the sum of £165,000 which is demanded is far in excess of the legitimate needs of this body, and thirdly that it penalises London in comparison with the up-river authorities, who, under it, escape what we regard as an equitable proportion of the cost. Speaking generally on the matter, it claims to be based on the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Thames and Lea Conservancy, which suggested an annual revenue of £150,000. This was framed to meet the conditions that then existed, without regard altogether to the probable conditions in 1925. It seems to us to have erred in its estimates in two or three matters. First it estimated for £26,000 for arrears in maintenance, which would not be necessary at all after 1925, and secondly for £21,000 a year for expenditure on works of a capital nature, which ought not to have been provided for out of borrowed moneys. We claim that the estimate is altogether excessive because the pro-War expenditure was only £60,000, and it now asks for £165,000, whereas we hold,
making due allowance for the increased cost subsequent to the War, that £100,000 would be adequate. We object to this Measure on account of the amount which London is asked to pay. Prior to the year 1912, the Metropolitan Water Board contributed about £33,000. The Thames Conservancy Act, 1911, increased the amount to £40,000. For the years betwen 1912 and 1919 it was raised gradually to £45,000 in 1920. This amount was regarded as a final settlement, and it would not have been allowed to pass at that time had it not been so regarded. The Thames Conservancy Act, 1921, raised the amount by 150 per cent., to £112,500, until 1925. This was passed on the distinct understanding that all questions in dispute would be considered by a new Departmental Committee, but as far as we know these matters have not been considered. At any rate, there is no record available on which we can judge whether it has been considered, and now this Bill has the temerity, to put it modestly, to ask to be made permanent a condition of things that was granted to it temporarily and in a state of emergency. That is to say, London is once more to be regarded as a splendid city to be sacked.
London is so big and unwieldly that it cannot take care of itself compared with these small boroughs up-river, who can take care of themselves and who think that London, being so unwieldly, is incapable of self-protection. These up-river bodies, with all their graces and charms, object to pay an equitable proportion of this cost. We submit that the amount that we are asked to pay is excessive, that it is inequitable, and, therefore, unjust. London has the right, by immemorial usage, to the use of the waters of the Thames. In any case, the upper river authorities cannot keep the water. It will come to us whether they like it or not.
The outstanding facts are these, that the sum of £45,000 in 1920 was increased to £112,500 in 1921, an increase of £67,500, or 150 per cent. above the pre-War charges. This Bill does suggest that after 10 years the matter might be considered if the Minister of Transport at that time should agree. But who would be the Minister of Transport 10 years hence? How can we tell? [HON. MEMBEES: "The present Minister!"] I hope
that may be so, and if the House could give me an assurance upon that point it would get rid of some of my objections. We hold that if, as we believe, the estimate is too high, the Metropolitan Water Board have the first claim upon any reduction that may take place. I will not follow my hon. Friend in his criticism of the amount which the riparian authorities are proposing to pay under the penny rate, except to say, that whilst this goes up to and includes Oxford, we regard it as entirely inadequate, because it does not include the bodies above Oxford, although 10 of the 44 locks which the conservancy have to maintain are above Oxford. It would grieve me to complain seriously about Oxford, but I must say that it is much more distinguished for the humanities than it is for finance and for coming to an equitable arrangement on this matter.
Since this proposal is not equitable or desirable, this Bill ought to be rejected. If the Bill is not rejected, at least the representation on the conservancy ought to be proportionate to the amount contributed by the respective authorities. On my own personal judgment, and without committing my hon. Friend, I maintain that the Thames is as much a national highway as the Great North Road. It is one of the greatest highways in this kingdom, and its maintenance should be a national charge, and not a charge upon any locality, up river or down river. It is a matter which belongs to the nation as a whole. Unless we can get some assurance from the promoters of the Bill that the whole matter shall be sympathetically and carefully considered in Committee, it will be our duty to ask the House to reject the Measure on Second Reading.

Captain TERRELL: I am sure the House has been very interested in the two very eloquent speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Motion for rejection. I am going to be very cautious at the outset, because I do not wish to be drawn into conflict with the two hon. Members. I noticed with keen interest that the Mover of the Motion referred to me rather with a twinkle in his eye, desirous, I presume, of drawing me into argument. Why should I argue or quarrel with him to-night when I find myself hand in hand with him in opposing what we both consider to be a very unfair Measure?
I should like to refer to his statement as to the inhabitants of the Metropolis having a right to the waters of the Thames, and his reference to those who drink water. I would remind him that the party of which he is a distinguished member has not yet secured a monopoly in the drinking of water. I drink water sometimes, and sometimes I wash in it, and, incidentally, I am a consumer of water in the Metropolis. Therefore, I am as much interested from the angle at which he has approached this Measure as he is.
9.0 p.m.
My objections are from a different standpoint. Though I am sympathetic in the main with the objects of the Bill I am compelled to oppose it because I think that it is very unfair. It has been drafted with very little consideration for those who live in the upper reaches of the Thames. It has been badly conceived, and it is based on erroneous assumptions. I consider that it is tantamount to an injustice to those who live in a riparian district such as Oxfordshire, portion of which I have the honour to represent in this august Assembly. We consider—and when I say "we" I mean the inhabitants of riparian districts affected by this Bill—that we have a direct grievance. We believe that we are being made use of to pay for advantages and benefits which ultimately will accrue to another section of the community, the water consumers in the Metropolis, and, if justice is to be the order of the day, if these people are desirous of those benefits and advantages it is up to them to foot the bill to pay for them. I cannot bring myself into line with remarks of the Mover and the Seconder because they seem to allot their sympathy from the standpoint of those in the Metropolis. There are other people to be considered. If this House is out to give justice to all sections of the community these other people ought to be considered. Though this Bill, as drafted, contains many obnoxious and contentious Clauses I will direct my criticism against two of the clauses, Clauses 31 and 32, contained in Part V of the Bill. These are the Clauses which mainly affect riparian districts such as Oxfordshire. Clause 31 provides:—
As and from the commencement of this Act there shall be paid to the conservators by each of the councils of the several counties and county boroughs respectively mentioned in Part 1 of the Fifth Schedule
to this Act (hereinafter collectively referred to as the contributory authorities) in each year the sums following, that is to say:

(i) By each of the councils of such counties an annual sum equivalent to the product of a levy of a rate of a penny in the pound on the assessable value of the several boroughs, urban districts, and parishes within said counties respectively mentioned in Part 2 of the said Schedule.
(ii) By each of the councils of such county boroughs an annual sum equivalent to the product of a levy of a rate of a penny in the pound of the assessable value of such boroughs respectively."

From this it will be seen that all riparian county councils, borough and district councils and parishes will have to pay a rate of one penny in the £ to the conservators. I claim that this is unfair and unreasonable. I know that the promoters of this Bill, who are here in great strength to-night, and who, I notice, are scattered in various corners of the House, will seek to justify themselves for the provisions of the Bill by the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee which was appointed by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Transport in 1921. They claim that this Bill is based on the recommendations and suggestions contained in that Report. Indeed in the circular, which has been sent out broadcast to-day to all hon. Members of this House, they make that statement. It is interesting at this particular juncture to refer to that Report, because I maintain that in certain respects that Report is most misleading, especially when it refers to the advantages that riparian district derive from the operations of the conservators.
They claim according to the report that the first advantage is the maintenance of adequate levels in the reaches and the regulation of the stream for the advantage of boating. After all, boating is not confined to those who live in riparian parishes. Other people, I suggest, visit Henley Regatta, and other regattas which are held on the reaches of the Thames. The second advantage which they claim is the reduction of flooding on low-lying land. The third advantage is the upkeep of tow paths. In the fourth place, they say that the value of the river is a substantial trade asset to the towns and villages where there are given facilities for boating and recreation. My opinion is that these assumptions are erroneous, and that the idea that riparian parishes
secure all these advantages is grossly exaggerated. I would go so far as to say that in certain instances riparian parishes do not derive any advantages from the fact that they have a river in that district. To bear out that statement may I tell the House that in many riparian parishes the inhabitants have not any legal access to the river at all.
I have no doubt that the average person, having read this Bill, would have come to the conclusion that all the inhabitants of riparian parishes dwelt alongside the river. But that is not so. In the majority of cases the inhabitants have no legal access whatsoever to the river. That is a bold statement to make, and to bear it out let me deal with the case as we find it in South Oxfordshire. There are, I believe, 25 riparian parishes which will be affected if this Bill is passed. Of those 25 riparian parishes1, in 11 the inhabitants have access to the river only by the towpath, and in 10 parishes the majority of the inhabitants have no legal access to the river at all. Yet in the whole of those parishes the inhabitants are to be rated to the extent of a penny in the £. Take a parish like Warborough. The only access that the inhabitants have to the river is at one very small point, and the extraordinary fact is that the smallest part of the population of this parish lives near the river. Then there is the parish called Ipsden. The only part of the river accessible to the inhabitants is at the ferry, which is not now used. This parish has a frontage to the river of less than one-third of a mile, whereas the length of the parish is between six and seven miles. That means that the inhabitants of that parish, although they live six or seven miles from the river, will have to pay the penny rate just the same as those who are fortunate enough to live on the banks of the river.
Another glaring instance is the parish called Botherfield Peppard, in South Oxfordshire. It has a frontage to the river of less than a quarter of a mile. The parish is over seven miles long, and and the village is four miles from the river. This is the condition as far as the majority of the riparian parishes are concerned, certainly as far as Oxfordshire is concerned. In the majority of the
riparian parishes affected by this penny rate, the inhabitants have no legal right whatsoever to the river. Surely, therefore, if they are called upon to pay this rate they will be suffering a serious injustice. I submit that it is misleading to say that the parishes get advantages. I believe it is true to say that a very large number of the inhabitants of these riparian parishes do not see the river, much less go on it, from one end of the year to the other. This Bill is being introduced entirely in the interests of the inhabitants of the Metropolis. If the Thames Conservancy desire to secure these extra benefits, it is up to them to shoulder the burden. Many a year has passed since a Bill of such a character, a Bill so grossly unfair, a Bill which will bring injustice to tens of thousands of people, has been introduced into this House.
I know that the promoters of the Bill desire to do well from the people of the Metropolis, but I appeal to them, business men as they are, legal gentlemen as they are, just to think of the other people who have to pay this rate, and not merely of the people who are ultimately to consume and enjoy this water. I take it that the promoters imagine that those who live in riparian parishes secure their livings from pleasure seekers and those who use the river for entertainment. That is not so. It may be true in a few cases; I dare say there are many people who make money out of pleasure-seekers in Oxford City. The hon. Member for Oxford City (Mr. F. Gray) can speak for them. I have no doubt that at Henley-on-Thames there are some who make money out of those who go there for pleasure. But mainly, in the constituency of South Oxfordshire, the inhabitants do not secure their living from the people who go there for pleasure, but they are employed in the main industry of the country, namely, agriculture, If this Bill passes, if the inhabitants of these riparian parishes are forced to pay this rate, this House will be inflicting upon those who are employed in agriculture, upon those who to-day are finding it difficult to make a living, another burden which they cannot possibly shoulder.
So much for Clause 31. With the indulgence of the House I should like to refer to Clause 32, which lays down that a proportion of an annual sum of £2,500 shall be paid, based on the rateable
values of the counties and boroughs mentioned in the Sixth Schedule to the extent to which they are within the catchment area, of the river. That contribution, it is said, is to go towards the expenses relating to the prevention of pollution. I would point out that the Thames Conservancy already have great powers to deal with this question in districts such as Oxfordshire, under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Acts, 1875 to 1893. It is interesting to note that although those Acts were passed to provide for the cleanliness of rivers and the prevention of pollution by noxious and insanitary matter, nevertheless, the Thames Conservancy have caused to be carried out from time to time vast and expensive works mainly with the object of providing drinking water for the Metropolis. Let me remind hon. Members that in the course of the last few years the ratepayers of the County of Oxfordshire have paid over £200,000 out of the rates towards this work. The House should also know that the various borough councils and parishes in Oxfordshire do not draw the water for their own consumption from the Thames. Some of those who favour this Measure have asked, "Why should not the inhabitants of the riparian parishes pay, since they consume this water? They do not consume it. They consume water, but not from the Thames, and in no single case in Oxfordshire does any urban council, rural council or any other authority draw water for consumption from the Thames. I apologise to the House for occupying so much time in airing the grievances of the people of South Oxfordshire, but I feel that if this Bill becomes an Act, it will bring about indescribable hardship, and will inflict a gross injustice on a section of the community who are not able to stand up for themselves and protect themselves.

Mr. J. D. GILBERT: As my name is on the back of this Bill, it may be convenient that I should put forward the views of the promoters in answer to the speeches of the hon. Members for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) and Henley (Captain Terrell). Those who object to the Bill appear to do so from various points of view, and considering the difference of opinion which seems to exist among the opponents of the Bill, I submit
the House should give it a Second Reading and allow it to go to a Committee, where the proposals made by the London Members and by the hon. Member for Henley can be more adequately discussed than is possible on the Floor of the House.

Captain TERRELL: Does that mean that the promoters of the Bill will consider the withdrawal of Clauses 31 and 32?

Mr. GILBERT: Certainly not. These Clauses represent an important part of the Bill, and on behalf of the promoters I cannot agree to withdraw either of them. The hon. Member for South Hackney discussed this Bill from the London point of view. If it were a Bill setting up a new authority for London and doing away with the multifarious authorities which we have at present, I do not believe that either the hon. Member for South Hackney, the hon. Member for East Woolwich or I would disagree with it, but we have to take the authorities as they are and deal with them as they exist to-day. Hearing some of the speeches to-night, one would imagine that the conservators of the River Thames were promoting the Bill without any thought or reason, but simply with the idea of getting money on the one hand from the London water consumers, and on the other from the riparian districts along the Upper Thames. I would remind hon. Members that the conservators were established as a body by Act of Parliament so long ago as 1857, and at various periods their powers have been increased by Parliament. The sums of money which they were empowered to receive, first from the Water Companies and latterly from the Water Board, have been increased by Acts of Parliament. In 1908, when the Port of London Authority was set up, this was an important Measure dealing with the powers of the Thames Conservancy. Up to 1908 the conservancy had control of the river from its source to the sea, but when the Port of London Authority was established, that part of the river from Teddington to the sea passed from the control of the conservators and came under the control of the Port of London Authority. That had a great effect upon the revenue of the Thames Conservancy, and it explains, in some way, why the conservancy have had
to come to this House on more than one occasion to secure powers for increasing their revenue.
During the War the conservancy suffered, like all other public authorities, from loss of revenue owing to War conditions. In 1920, taking advantage of the Ministry of Transport Act, they placed themselves under the control of that Ministry, and applied, under the powers which the Ministry possessed, for an increase of charges on the boating and other traffic of the river. A public inquiry was held by the Rates Advisory Committee, and the conservancy were given powers to enable them to derive, increased revenue from the owners of boats and barges using the Thames. That power was given on condition that, if the charges were increased to the boat-owners and the barge-owners, the amount paid by the Water Board, who were also contributors to the revenue, should also be increased. They put upon the conservancy the condition that, if they gave them these increased charges on the boating traffic, that they should apply to Parliament to get increased revenue from the Metropolitan Water Board.

Mr. GRAY: Is it not a fact that the Committee, to which the hon. Member has referred, expressly rejected that idea?

Mr. GILBERT: The Rates Advisory Committee had no powers to rate any of the up-river authorities. All the powers they had were to give the Conservancy power to increase charges for boating and barge traffic which use the Thames. They did put on the Conservancy a condition that, if they got an increase on the boating and barge traffic, they should apply to Parliament to get an increase in the amount paid by the Metropolitan Water Board. The result of that was, that we promoted a Bill in 1921. That Bill was one which we were bound in honour, having got the increased charge on the boating and barge traffic, to promote to get the other increased charges. The Bill came before Parliament. Another Bill, at the same time, dealt with the Lea Conservancy on similar lines, and there was a Bill from the Metropolitan Water Board, which was objecting to pay us any extra money for the water they obtained from the Thames, asking for authority to increase
their charges up to 10 per cent. on the rateable value of the whole of the water area of London. There was a good deal of opposition to all those Bills. There was a very long Debate in this House on the three Bills. During the Debate the Minister of Transport made the following speech. He said:
I do not want in the smallest degree to attempt to prejudge these matters, but I am authorised to say on behalf of my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Transport and Health, that when these Bills do receive a Second Reading it is their intention to set up an Inter-departmental Committee to take the broader question into consideration at an early date, and that report would be useful to Parliament. We hope at any time when it became right to revise the charges in the light of the time limit which we venture to hope will ultimately find a place in this Bill.
That was the speech of the then Minister of Transport on the Second Reading Debate of those three Bills. The Bills were referred to a Joint Committee of the two Houses, and as a result of the decision of that Committee the increased amount from the Metropolitan Water Board was given to the Thames Conservancy as mentioned by a previous speaker. The Minister of Transport carried out the promise which he made to the House to appoint an Inter-Departmental Committee. The members were, Lord Newton, Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Betterton), the town clerk of Liverpool, Mr. J. R. Brooke, of the Ministry of Transport, and Mr. R. J. Simpson of the Ministry of Health. None of these had any connection with the Thames Conservancy and they were entirely an independent body to inquire into the work and conditions under which the Thames Conservancy work. If hon. Members will read their Report they will see that it consisted of 41 pages. It is quite true part of it deals with the River Lea. They held nine public meetings and examined 48 witnesses, a good many connected with the upper reaches of the Thames. They say in their Report one very flattering thing so far as the work of the conservancy is concerned. They say:
Expenditure.—We received no evidence of any wasteful or inappropriate expenditure by the conservators and a large number of witnesses expressed appreciation of their work; we have been impressd with the efficiency, foresight, and economy with which the conservators have carried out their important public duties.
They then go on to say, on revenue:
We regard it as essential that the income of the conservancy should be adequate and assured to them so as to provide security for the repayment of a loan. It is our considered opinion that an annual revenue of approximately £150,000 is the minimum which should at the present time be placed at the disposal of the conservators, and that this amount would only suffice on the assumption that it would be possible for them to raise a loan to defray capital expenditure which forms part of the estimate for arrears of work and that the general cost of labour and material will fall in the next few years.
They then go on to say, on existing forms of revenue:
We accept the main contention of the Metropolitan Water Board that the water consumers should not be called upon to bear so great a share in the cost of upkeep of the conservancy, whilst ratepayers in riparian districts who benefit substantially from the work of the conservators make no contribution to the conservancy funds. We find also that no appreciable addition to the revenue can be counted upon from existing sources.
These were some of the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee. The Bill, which was passed in 1921, gave the conservators a period of five years. When this Report was produced by the Inter-Departmental Committee I respectfully submit to the House the conservators could take no other action than bring in a Bill based on its recommendations. That is what they have done. That is the Bill before the House to which I am asking the House to give a Second Beading. It is quite true that it does contain quite a new principle. But the Inter-Departmental Committee are responsible for that recommendation. It is quite true they recommend that £2,500 be given to the conservancy from the county authorities and county boroughs towards the cost of preventing pollution. They also recommend that the value of a penny rate estimated to yield £12,000 should be paid by county boroughs, urban districts and rural parishes in the riparian districts.
We submit, on behalf of the conservators, that in view of these recommendations, in view of the powers of the conservancy coming to an end next year, as we derived our power from Parliament we were logically bound to come back to Parliament, and place in a Bill the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee. I submit that we are doing
the right thing, and I hope the House will give this Bill a Second Reading. The point as to whether the riparian districts should be rated or not is purely a Committee point. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of this Bill and the seconder made a great point as to the Metropolitan Water Board paying too much for the water to the Thames Conservancy. One would think that they were paying a very large amount compared with their expenditure to the Thames Conservancy. I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) could have looked up the recent figures of the Metropolitan Water Board. They have estimated that in 1924 their total expenditure in round figures is £4,509,000. Of that amount they put down for storage, special treatment and filtration of water £264,000. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney and other London Members who may sympathise with him that if you get any reduction, large or small, from £112,000 out of the total expenditure of 4j millions by the Metropolitan Water Board they are not going to reduce the cost of water one farthing to the consumers in the metropolitan district.
PersoNally, I wish they were. I am a metropolitan water consumer, and I should very much like to know that the cost of water was going to be reduced, but I am quite certain that if the whole amount were taken off, it would make no difference at all to the cost of water supplied by the Metropolitan Water Board, and I would suggest to the hon. Member for South Hackney—we do not differ in our views about the Water Board—that he should look in other quarters, if he wants to get the expenditure of the Water Board down, rather than in the amount that they give to the Thames Conservancy. They take this water from the conservancy, and they pay us for it, but they do not give it away. They sell it at a very large profit, and I have worked out the amount of £112,000 as being about 2½ per cent. of the total expenditure of the Metropolitan Water Board. It is rather strange that the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment object from the Water Board point of view. There is no opposition from the Metropolitan Water Board on the Second Reading, although it is true that they have objections on Clauses.

Mr. H. MORRISON: Neither the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) nor myself speaks for the Metropolitan Water Board. We speak for our constituencies and the interests of London, which are much greater.

Mr. GILBERT: I suggest that they were putting forward the case from the Metropolitan Water Board point of view. The London County Council, of which the hon. Member for South Hackney and I are members, are also opposing this Bill, but not on Second Beading. They are supporting the petition of the Metropolitan Water Board to try and get a reduction in the amount, but they are only opposing on Clauses, and in view of the opposition from those two important bodies not being on Second Reading, I suggest to the House that that is an additional reason why the Bill should be given a Second Reading and allowed to go to a Committee upstairs. We are met with opposition from the up-river authorities. The Thames Conservancy have tried to come to an agreement, not only with the Metropolitan Water Board, but also with the up-river authorities. I think I might state, as regards the Metropolitan Water Board, that negotiations have taken place—of course, entirely without prejudice—and I was hoping that I would have been able to tell the House this evening that an agreement had been come to between the board and the conservancy. I regret I am not in that position. The same negotiations have taken place with the up-river authorities, some of whom came in and certainly consulted the conservators as to what they wanted, but I am sorry to say that Berks and Bucks and Oxon, three of the county councils concerned, have refused to come into conference and discuss the matter with the Thames Conservancy.

Captain TERRELL: It is fair also to state that, although the county councils to which the hon. Member has referred would not come into the conference, it was for the sole reason that the conservancy authorities absolutely would not give in in the least bit and would not change their principles in any way. In fact, they made no ground clear for a conference to take place.

Mr. GILBERT: I can only repeat that the Thames Conservancy called a conference of the up-river authorities, with
the object of seeing if they could agree terms, in order to save all the expense of having a Bill before a Committee of this House—and anybody who knows private Bill procedure knows that the expenditure is very great—and the county councils of Berks and Bucks and Oxon refused to come to conference and discuss the matter at all with the conservancy authorities. On the other hand, may I say that the two largest contributors of the county councils, who will have to pay the two largest amounts, namely, Middlesex and Surrey, are perfectly willing to agree to pay those amounts, subject to some details in Clauses being agreed to upstairs. One of those county councils, Middlesex, is going to pay £2,102, and the other, Surrey, will have to pay, it is estimated, £5,321. They have a far less mileage front to the river than either of the other counties I have mentioned, and Bucks, which is putting up a strong opposition to this Bill, will be asked to pay approximately £826 and Oxford £817. Again, I would like to say that I think, in view of the facts that I have put before the House, the question of dealing with these up-river authorities is purely a matter of bargaining and could be done very much better upstairs before a Committee of this House.
One other matter has arisen to-day, on which I have been approached by several hon. Members who sit on this side of the House. A whip has been sent out dealing with the boating charges by a certain section of the boat owners in the upper part of the river. When the river was divided in 1908, the dividing line between the upper and I he lower river was Teddington Lock. When we got the increased powers to charge given us by the Rates Advisory Committee, and subsequently under a Bill, that meant that the whole of the boat owners who let out boats above Teddington Lock had to pay the new conservancy charges, while the boat owners below Teddington Lock are under the licence of the Port of London Authority, who have not increased their charges, with the result that the boat owners at Richmond, which is one of the places from which circulars have been sent, and which is in the Port of London Authority area, pay 10d. per year for a boat, while in the upper river the licence is 10s. a year for a boat. The boat owner, however, who has a licence below Teddington Lock has the right, subject
to payment of lock charges, to go into the upper reaches of the river under the control of the conservancy, and the reason why we put forward Clause 50 was on behalf of the boat owners in the upper reaches of the river, who naturally complain of the unfair competition of the boat owners who pay only the Port of London licence. The Thames Boating Association, who represent these people and are objecting on Clauses, I am informed, were quite satisfied with the way in which we had met them, and the Richmond boatowners who have been circularising hon. Members are members of the Thames Boating Association. All I can say is that, if there is a strong feeling on this particular Clause, we are quite willing to leave it to the unbiassed decision of the Committee upstairs, and I hope, in view of the statement I have made, that it will be seen that our object was to put all the boatowners exactly on the same level, and that we were trying to do the right thing in the interests, at any rate, of the boatowners who pay our extra and increased licence charges.
I think I have dealt with nearly all the points that have been put forward by the three preceding speakers. It is perfectly true that on the Paper there is an Instruction to the Committee if the Second Reading is carried. Let me say, on behalf of the promoters, that we certainly cannot accept that Instruction. The Bill deals with charges in the upper river and charges on the Metropolitan Water Board, and the two things hang together, and it would be very unfair to the Metropolitan Water Board and the London water consumer if this House gave an Instruction to cut out the part dealing with the people in the upper regions of the river. I think that anybody who has visited the upper Thames and knows the way in which the Conservancy have maintained the locks and reaches and weirs, all of which have a great deal to do with the general supply of water, not only for the Metropolitan Water Board, but also for the convenience of these holiday towns to which the hon. and gallant Member for Henley has referred, must appreciate what the Thames Conservancy has done. The upper river is a great holiday resort for the people of London, and I do beg the House, in view of the various opinions held here
to-night, and in view of the fact that this conservancy has always derived its powers from this House, to give the Bill a Second Reading, and allow it to go to a Committee upstairs, where the various points put to-night will be received by the conservators with the greatest possible consideration; and, they will find that the conservators are not at all unreasonable.

Captain BOWYER: The hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Gilbert) has met the claim of certainly three large counties, all of whom have petitioned against this Bill, with the curt remark that their claim can be heard in Committee, and has nothing to do with the discussion of the Second Reading of the Bill. If ever there was a claim put forward in this House which went to principle, and not to detail, I think it is the claim put forward by the three counties of Buckingham, Oxford and Berks. It is perfectly true that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Henley (Captain Terrell) and myself and other hon. Members in other parts of the House, are approaching this Measure in their opposition from a totally different aspect and standpoint than that which was taken up by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion for the rejection. I feel, however, deeply indebted to them, because it seems to me they have proved to the House one thing more conclusively than anything else, and that is that the Thames Conservators are claiming a very much greater sum in this Bill than is likely to be needed as their yearly revenue. The point I want to make at the outset is this. If the two hon. Members who moved and seconded the rejection were correct in saying that the conservators wore claiming something over £40,000 a year too much, then I submit there is ample room for the Thames Conservators to forego the £14,500 that they are demanding from the three counties.
There are other points in the speech of the hon. Member the Mover to which I will not refer, but with which I do not agree, for instance, the remark in which he seemed to claim that the water of the Thames belongs to the people of London, because there are so many people in London. I shall be ready on another occasion to argue against that. Then he said, or as I understood him to say, that, as far as he was concerned, the upriver
authorities were not paying sufficient; that, in fact, according to his argument, we were having done for us certain river works which otherwise we should have to do for ourselves. If I may answer that point now, because it is also a point upon which, I have no doubt, the hon. Member for Central Southwark relied, as was pointed out by the rates advisory committee, and as, indeed, was fully recognised in the preamble of the Thames Conservancy Act which passed this House in 1921, not only the local authorities for the districts abutting on the river, but also those other districts many miles away from the river, have already, in effect, made large contributions towards the cost of purifying the river for the benefit of the London water consumers, by the construction, at great expense, of works for the disposal of sewage, and other works, and the powers of the conservators for the prevention of pollution are more stringent than the powers of county councils and others under the Rivers Pollution Act, and are fully exercised by the conservators.
As far as the County of Buckingham is concerned, this matter started in May, 1923, and the whole of my remarks will be directed towards the new sources of revenue which the Thames Conservancy seeks to bring into play. In May, 1923, was published the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee of which my hon. Friend who sits below mc was a distinguished member. This Inter-Departmental Committee was appointed in pursuance of an undertaking given to Parliament on the passing of the Thames Conservancy Act in that year. That Committee was to consider how the revenue of the conservancy could be secured after the 31st December, 1925, upon which date, it is perfectly true, the present Thames Conservancy Act expires. It is also perfectly true that, in due course, the Thames Conservators will need a fresh Act of Parliament in order to get a fresh revenue. But they are hi too great a hurry in demanding their fresh Bill before actually they have need of it. It is quite true also, that unless they do get this new Act, their revenue will fall from something like £112,500 to their pre-War revenue of £45,000 a year, but in their Report the Inter-Departmental Committee state that, while
they accepted the main contention of the Metropolitan Water Board, that the water consumers of London should not be called upon to pay any greater sum, or take any greater share in the cost of upkeep of the Thames, they also said they thought it fair that the advantages which riparian districts derived from the operations of the conservators should form the basis of some contribution to the conservancy fund, and hence we get the two recommendations that some £14,500 should be levied on up-river authorities and counties. The first levy is that of £2,500 towards the prevention of pollution, and is to be levied on the county councils and county boroughs in the Thames Valley. I should like to point out that this is the first time, so far as I can learn, that this principle of levying a rata upon a whole county for the benefit of the river which flows past one boundary of the county has been introduced, or sought to be introduced, into an Act of Parliament.
I should like to point out to the hon. Member for Central Southwark that from the days of Hampden the county of Buckingham has always resisted any fresh taxation when they thought that such taxation was not warranted and was unjust. The second sum to which Buckinghamshire and other counties will have to contribute is a levy of £12,000 in the form of a penny rate upon certain districts and parishes. At the same time as the Departmental Committee wont so far as to recommend the levying of these rates, they pointed out that they were impressed by the practical difficulty as to whether the contributions which could reasonably be asked for from other districts would, in fact, be any actual relief to London water consumers. So far as the county of Buckingham is concerned, the actual amounts to be paid are comparatively small. Out of the £2,500, we shall pay £178, and out of the £12,000 levied by the penny rate we shall contribute £648. The total amount is only £826 a year. But behind that fact it is the principle that matters: it is not the actual amount, though in any year that amount could be enormously increased. It is the principle to which I am directing the attention of the House and my remarks.
On 5th November last year, it is perfectly true, the various local authorities affected by the Bill were called together, and it is true that there are two county
councils, I believe those of Middlesex and Surrey, which were content with the other provisions of the Bill. But every other county council, I am instructed, threatened to oppose the Measure, and I believe the other county councils and the local authorities and district authorities are against the Measure to-day. The chief objections are: first of all, the new principle that is attempted now for the first time, the principle of levying a rate upon a whole county for the benefit of works on a river which only flows past the southern portion of the county, so that the men and women living nearly 60 or 70 miles away, in Buckinghamshire, have got to contribute. That is a new principle, and is the main objection which I should like to voice this evening.
10.0 P.M.
Secondly—and I will run over these quite quickly, as there are other hon. Members who wish to speak—I submit it is absolutely premature to bring on this Bill at this moment nearly two years before the new Act becomes law. There is this further ground for asking for the postponement of the Measure, namely, that if the Bill were brought forward next year the conservators, I submit, would be far more likely to bring forward an accurate estimate of what their revenue is likely to be than now. The Rates Advisory Committee which considered this question, whilst it is true that they recommended an increase in the tolls and charges, and a big increase in the contributions to the Water Board, definitely rejected the suggestion that the rates should be levied on the localities and authorities adjoining the river. Therefore the county council of Buckinghamshire, and the local authorities in that county definitely submit that Part 5 of the Bill should be taken out, that is to say, Clauses 31 to 33. In the event of the promoters of the Bill not seeing their way to do that, then I, for my part, ask hon. Members to reject the Measure on the ground, essential above all, that a new principle of rating has been brought in which runs counter to the great underlying principle of all rating, which is that no man or woman should be asked to pay a rate except in proportion that they either derive a benefit or escape a danger.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I will not occupy the attention of the House for long, for I wish only to define the attitude of the Ministry towards this Bill, which in view of the coming Division may help hon. Members to make up their minds.

Mr. E. BROWN: This refers to 15 counties, not two or three.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. and gallant Gentleman, who has just sat down, said it was the principle that mattered. I do not wish to discuss any details of the Measure, but to deal with the principle. The object of the Bill is to place the financial requirements of the Thames Conservancy on a proper basis. That is a thing with which, I think, all hon. Members agree. The whole question is quite a simple one. The problem we have to face is whether the Conservancy and Metropolitan water authorities should bear as big a financial burden as they are now doing, whilst other authorities escape, notwithstanding the fact that they do derive direct benefit from the operations of the Thames Conservancy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

Captain TERRELL: They do not do anything of the kind. Can you prove it?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not concerned whether the proposed contributions are right contributions or not. The point is, that those who benefit should make a contribution. That is a sound principle. When a question of the workpeople and their taking benefit of any kind from public authorities comes before this House, hon. Members suggest that they should pay a little towards it—however little it may be—to maintain their self-respect. It is not asking too much that we should expect these various authorities to pay in the same way to maintain their self-respect. That is an obvious truth that will be accepted by all. I say I am only concerned about the principle that those local authorities that benefit—[HON. MEMBERS: "We do not."] I do not wish to argue the amount of the contribution. This is not the proper place to argue that question, but I submit that if hon. Members accept the recommendation of the Ministry of Health that a Second Reading should be given,
the details as to the allocation of the contributions may well be thrashed out upstairs after evidence has been taken. I am not prepared to accept all the details of this Bill. As a matter of fact, the Ministry of Health reserves the right to give evidence, perhaps of a critical kind, as to certain details of the Bill. What we are anxious for is that these financial arrangements of the conservancy should be put on a proper footing, and that the authorities which derive benefit from the operations of the conservancy should pay a contribution to the cost. I think that is a fair principle. Whether it is £800 or £8,000 that any authority has to pay is clearly a matter for argument. I hope the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill and leave the questions of trivial detail to be settled in the appropriate place which is not on the Floor of the House of Commons.

Mr. F. GRAY: It is a most extraordinary and remarkable thing, and I think it is the first time in my experience of the House, that I find myself to-night in agreement with every party but my own. It is peculiar that a party so famous for its unity as my own should be split from top to bottom on this question. I agree with the Member for Buckingham (Captain Bowyer) on one point, which is, that when you have a Bill presented by a body which, if I may say so, is so revered and respected as the board concerned with the upper reaches of the Thames, on the basis of an Inter-Depart-mental Committee, you have a prima facie Bill which should not be debated here, but the details and Clauses of which should be debated and considered by the machinery provided for considerations of that kind. Here is introduced a principle entirely novel, and unthought of before so far as English legislation is concerned. May I say in passing that you might suppose from the depleted condition of the benches on the other side of the House that this is merely a private and personal fight; but that is not so. As so frequently happens between those on my left and myself, we are journeying to the same goal, but by an entirely different route. The principle involved here is one which, if carried, is to affect the whole of England and Scotland far beyond the Thames Valley. In point of fact, as has been mentioned by
other speakers before, the basis upon which the figures are arrived at is unfair and unfortunate, inasmuch as it was taken at a time when the expenditure on the Thames Conservancy was inflated and the revenue deflated. As a matter of fact, the funds of the Metropolitan Water Board at that time were depleted, and this led up to this very Bill. But since then, through the authority obtained in 1921, the Metropolitan Water Board has put itself in funds, and no longer requires the assistance sought by this Bill. Moreover, and this is important, if you analyse the last balance-sheet, and I think it is the balance-sheet for 1922 which I have got, of the Thames Conservancy, you will find that for an expenditure of £107,000 they seek a revenue of £165,000. In point of fact that expenditure of £107,000 is now obtained by debiting income with substantial capital payment. The Minister who has just spoken had no intention to mislead the House, but he obviously has not siezed himself in any way of the facts of this Bill. He says glibly, that we should pay for the benefits we obtain, but he seems to be unconscious and oblivious of the fact that we have been paying for centuries. Perhaps he will permit me to say, and will not think it presumptuous on my part if I claim that I have some acquaintance with the facts. The Thames Conservancy have at the outset secured their revenue from tolls and other charges upon users of the river, upon pleasure services and merchant services for commercial purposes, and from sales. At a later date they have charged, and properly charged, those people who have abstracted water from the river. The City of Oxford, which I have the honour to represent, for a consideration have secured their water supply. The Minister supposes that they secured their water-supply with any consideration whatsoever.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I never made any such suggestion. I did not say they did not pay for the water obtained from the river. The suggestion that individual users of the river pay charges does not meet my case, which is that the local authorities have not paid for the common advantages received.

Mr. GRAY: I notice that the Minister was careful, as I have frequently been myself when I did not understand any particular matter, to refrain from re-
ferring to details and facts which would disclose that unpleasant fact. Again, may I presume to tell him something of the situation. The only benefit we have acquired, except for one thing which I am to mention later, is the disposal of pollution. May I take it that is the question the Minister meant? Am I right?

Mr. GREENWOOD: indicated assent.

Mr. GRAY: That was the purest guesswork on the part of the Minister. There is a special Clause under which the different areas jointly contribute £2,000. I think there is a very strong objection to that, but that is the price which is put against the heading of paying for the disposing of the pollution of the Thames. It is objectionable for this reason, that the great municipalities, like the one I have the honour to represent, and the Borough of Reading, have already paid more than their full share by providing machinery to raise the standard of purity which serves the purposes of London. A far more important point about which the Minister has not yet heard is that, after you have paid for your boating facilities, both for commercial purposes and pleasure, throughout the length of the Thames, and paid for other facilities as riparian owners, and the avoidance of pollution, as we do, it is now proposed that we should be taxed to the extent of a penny rate for the benefit of the Metropolitan area, while in that area they propose to pay no more than a rate of one-sixteenth of a penny. What are we paying that for? The hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of this Bill, with whom I do not want to fall out, because we are making for the same goal by an entirely different route, what does he say? He says that, by virtue of the river which gives grace and charm to Oxford City, and we have many other graces and charms as well, that it attracts visitors in the same way as Margate and Rams-gate, where probably the hon. Member goes himself.
The point I put is this. Because Rams-gate and Margate attract visitors by virtue of the sea, are you going to propose to put a tax on the sea in order to benefit the fish shops in London? It is an astounding proposal. Are we to pay a special tax because of our beautiful spas
and pleasure grounds? Is that the proposal? I do not know whether hon. Members representing Manchester are going to do it for the same reason, but I should say probably not, from what I know of that district. At Manchester they get a substantial part of the water which they use which is drawn from the Lake Thirlmere. Let me put it to these shrewd and hard-headed business men that they should now propose to introduce a Bill putting on the riparian owners of Thirlmere Lake—which they have disfigured by their locks and docks in the same way as the Thames Conservancy have injured Oxford and thereabouts—a tax because it has to be cleansed and purified, and dredged, for the benefit of the consumers in the city of Manchester.

Mr. MASTERMAN: We would if we could.

Mr. GRAY: I have no doubt you would, and so would the Thames Conservancy, goaded on by the London Members; but they will not be permitted to do it. This matter was carefully considered by the Bates Advisory Committee in 1919, and after careful consideration was rejected as being a novel and at the same time entirely unsound method of taxation, and it is for that reason and as a matter of justice that we, for a variety of different reasons it is true, but most heartily, sincerely and firmly, oppose the Bill.

Mr. BETTERTON: As I was a member of the Inter-Departmental Committee which has been referred to, and as I happened to be the only Member of Parliament on it, I think it is only right and fair to the House that I should state, quite shortly, the reasons which prompted us to make the Report that we did. This Bill is, in the main, founded on the Report of the Committee, and the reference to the Committee was this:
To examine the revenue and expenditure of the Thames and Lea Conservancies and to consider the source from which their revenues are derived; and to report whether, and to what extent and from what source, any additional revenue could be brought into contribution.
I want to state the problem as it presented itself to us, and the reasons which induced us to make the recommendations that we did. I hope the names of the Committee are a sufficient guarantee that we considered the matter quite impartially and fairly and carefully.
We gave a very full hearing to, I think, something like 50 witnesses; we examined in person practically every part of the river from Teddington to Oxford, and we held a great many meetings—I think 10 or 15; and there was one or two proposals or conclusions which were based on the evidence we heard, and about which we had no doubt whatever. The first was that we were absolutely satisfied, from the evidence we had, and there has been no evidence to the contrary since, that the conservators have done their work and carried on their duties efficiently and economically and well. There was no evidence at all that they had been profligate or extravagant in their expenditure.
The next conclusion we came to was that, if the conservators are to be placed in a position to carry on the work which they are doing, they must have at least a revenue of £150,000 a year, which is little more than £2,000 a year more than they have now—it is practically the same. We were also satisfied that that revenue must be an assured revenue, because it must be a revenue on which they could raise the loans which were necessary for capital expenditure. The revenue of the conservators hitherto has been made up, as to no less than 76 per cent., by the contributions of the London water companies, as to 19 per cent. by tolls, and as to the balance—only 3 or 4 per cent.—by the sale of ballast and from other sources of that kind. We came definitely to the conclusion that the amount which the London water consumers are paying is larger that the amount they should be asked to pay, and they are paying too large a proportion of the revenue of the conservancy. Therefore the problem presented itself to us, how we were to recommend that the additional revenue should be made up. We recommended that a sum of £2,500 should be provided by the county authorities and county boroughs in the Thames Valley.

Mr. KEENS: Is that the terms of the Bill? Is not the Bill the catchment area of the Thames and not the Thames Valley?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am speaking of the Report we made. We further recommended that contributions be made by all riparian county boroughs, urban dis-
tricts and rural parishes from and including Oxford to the lower boundary of the Conservators' jurisdiction. We came definitely to the conclusion that there are large numbers of persons in the Valley of the Thames who are deriving benefit from the operations of the Conservators for which at present they are not paying, and when you look at the large items of expenditure I can explain in a moment how we came to arrive at this conclusion. A very large proportion of the expenditure by the Conservators is in respect of the maintenance of river works, locks, weirs, tow paths, and so on, and when we came to consider who got the advantages of this expenditure we thought some or all of these riparian authorities in the Valley of the Thames derived benefit to a larger or smaller extent. The evidence on this point was really of a very remarkable character, and I would refer to paragraph 60 of our Report, which contained the following passages:
Whilst several witnesses, including those of local authorites, testified to the value of the Thames and of the work of the conservators, we were surprised to hear that a number of others were not prepared to admit that the river brought them any advantage. The Maidenhead witness, for example, contended that the borough lost rather than gained by the influx of visitors, and referred to the rebuilding of Boulter's Lock as not adding to the amenities of the district, inasmuch as the time occupied in the passage of the lock, which he considered was one of its attractions, had been considerably lessened. An Oxford witness was of opinion that Oxford was of more benefit to the river than was the river to Oxford.

Mr. GRAY: A view with which I cordially agree.

Mr. BETTERTON: I should be surprised to hear that it was universally shared. This, perhaps, is the most remarkable of all.
A Reading witness went so far as to say that he did not think the town would be seriously prejudiced if the river were reduced to a mere trickle.
I will ask my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Henley if he is prepared to go to Henley and say that, in his opinion, it does not matter to Henley whether the river is reduced to a trickle or not.

Mr. GRAY: With regard to Henley, the river is an important asset, but with regard to Reading it certainly is not. Reading is a commercial centre, apart
from the river. With respect to Oxford, no witness would be likely to say that the river was the outstanding asset, but, rather, the University.

Captain TERRELL: I made it perfectly clear in my speech that to Henley the river is an asset. The point I tried to make was this, that those who lived several miles back in the riparian areas are getting no advantage whatever from the river, and I ask the hon. Member whether the Committee took evidence from farmers who live ten or twelve miles away in riparian parishes.

Mr. BETTERTON: I am glad to hear from the hon. and gallant Member that the river is an asset to Henley.

Captain TERRELL: I made that admission in my speech.

Mr. BETTERTON: In regard to the whole question, we were definitely of the opinion that places like Henley, Maidenhead, Oxford and Reading did derive very considerable advantage from the river, an advantage for which they ought to be asked to pay. With regard to the parishes just mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member, where the frontage to the river is comparatively small, I agree that in some of these cases the Committee, to which I hope this Bill will be referred, might consider whether or not they ought to be asked to contribute, and, if so, how much. With regard to the general principle, we thought that those who derived benefit should be asked to pay. As to the Bill itself, I hop", that it will go upstairs, where these points can be considered. Whether that happens or not rests with the House. I thought it right as a Member of the Committee to state the reasons which induced us, after very careful consideration of the whole of the facts and of the evidence, to make the report which we did.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): As the Minister of Transport and representing the Department that was responsible, with the Ministry of Health, for setting up the Inter-Departmental Committee, I should like to say a few words. The Committee very carefully went into the whole subject and the Bill was prepared on the findings of the Committee. May I remind the House of the main findings of the Committee which now appears in the Bill?
We regard it as essential that the income of the conservators should be adequate and assured to them so as to provide security for the repayment of a loan. It is our considered opinion that the annual revenue of approximately £150,000 is the minimum which should at the present time be placed at the disposal of the conservators, and that this amount would only suffice on the assumption that it would be possible for them to raise a loan to defray the actual expenditure which forms part of the estimate for the arrears of work.
I would like to call the attention of the House to a document issued by the conservators, in which they point out that the result of the rejection of the Bill would be very serious to the water supply of the Metropolis, to inland transport waterway and to public recreation grounds. The opposition to this Bill seems to come from those who do not want to pay. They are not even united in their reasons. They are willing that others should pay if they could only get some relief for themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] That is how it struck me as I listened to the whole Debate.
There is another reason why this power should be allowed to the conservancy. They need it for their new works. It was my duty to support the endeavour to find work for the unemployed, and, among other, to approach the Thames Conservancy. They said, "We have a lot of work which we want to put in hand, and we should be very pleased to do it, but until we are sure that we are going to get this Bill, we cannot do that work." Though I do not want to put that too high, it is a consideration for pressing this Bill forward. If there are any adjustments to be made in this Bill they would not justify the wrecking of the Bill to-night. They should be made in Committee. There is one point that has been raised to-day which rather concerns me. That is the question of the tolls which were referred to by the hon. Member who introduced the Bill with regard to the watermen. I have a suggestion to make which might put that right. With regard to Clause 50 and the position of the watermen who have made representations to Members of this House, I am naturally, as many here know, most concerned.
I understand that the Thames Conservancy are willing that this matter should be settled in a manner satisfactory
to all parties. I feel that the Clause should certainly be further examined, and I am inclined to think that it ought to be modified. I have asked the Conservancy whether they would agree to meet the watermen with a view to modifying this Clause, and if it would be of any assistance to the parties I should be glad to preside at a conference for which there will be every opportunity at a later stage. I would say to my friends who raised the question from what I would call the London point of view that they ought to withdraw their opposition and let the Bill go to a Committee. Together with the Minister of Health, and speaking as Minister of Transport, I would ask the House to let the Bill have a Second Reading. Having said that in that capacity, I would like to say a word or two to the House as a Thames man, I belong to a very long line of Thames watermen, and the way in which the Thames has been treated during the whole of my life, and from what I have heard from my father and my grandfather during the whole of their lives, is not worthy of such a magnificent river.

Captain TERRELL: Treated by whom?

Mr. GOSLING: By everybody at different times; treated by people when they were not wanting it for a moment or two; treated by people in winter who did not want it till the summer, and that kind of thing. I speak strongly, because I have experienced it. I remember when we wanted to get the lower reaches of the river in better condition. I remember the great effort that was made by the then Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). I remember how he went to the municipalities and said, "Let us municipalise the river." They had the greatest job in the world in fiNally forming the Port of London Authority. The doing of that has put the Thames Conservancy rather in the position that it is in now. When I hear hon. Members who represent riverside constituencies saying that the river is no good, or, if they do not say it, meaning it for the moment, and then saying that thy do not want to pay, I remember that when one goes to these places the first thing one sees on the bookstalls is a guide to the town, that one is encouraged to go there and spend money, and that always on the front page of the
guide it is stated that the first attraction is the river itself. Let me read an extract from a guide to a very well-known town.
The fame of the Thames is world-wide. It is our most typical English river, and is so thoroughly identified with our national history that, even if it had no attraction other than those of its many famous associations, it could not be despised. Happily, however, it possesses in many parts of its course scenery that it would be impossible to over-praise, and has on its banks so many interesting, old-world towns and pretty sequestered villages, appealing to artists, anglers, boatmen and all manner of tourists, as to render the Thames Valley an admirable district for excursions. Beyond this there are the incentives that the Thames provides for all kinds of river sports, which can be enjoyed under exceptioNally favourable conditions.
I want to say a word about the Thames, apart from its trade. Nothing has been said about the Thames, apart from its trade. Nothing has been said about that to-night. We have talked only about the water for drinking. That is the last thing you do with a river; you use it for every other purpose first and drink it last. The river leads a most precarious life. No one seems to care for it until it is actually wanted, and then it is described as in the quotation I have read, and, fiNally, big hotel charges are extracted out of those who go to these places. Yet the very places that get the money by this means come here and say that they ought not to subscribe to this scheme because they do not want it. Speaking now for the first time as a waterside man, out of office for the moment, I am trying to speak for a river that I love more than anything else. I ask Members to consider the comparatively small amount of money which is being discussed now, and to think of what we would be prepared to spend if we were asked to keep intact an open space of the same value as the river. It is one of the finest lungs in the country. It is the most beautiful open space that one can find. By way of comparison, I have been looking up what we spend upon open spaces, and I find that the amount expended on national parks in London alone—Hyde Park, the Green Park and St. James's Park—is £92,000 a year, and yet when the conservancy ask for the means to raise sufficient money to keep the river going there is all this trouble about getting it. It would be worth spending the whole amount asked for if it were spent solely on keeping the river as an open space,
and for pleasure purposes, apart from anything else. It is one of our greatest inland waterways and for all these reasons I appeal to the House to allow this Bill to go to a Committee where these differences may be thrashed out, and not to reject the claims of one of the finest waterways in the whole country.

Mr. GILBERT: With regard to the appeal made by the Minister of Transport, may I say that I accept his proposal about the watermen? We shall be pleased to meet them, and we shall be pleased to accept the hon. Gentleman as Chairman of any Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON: There is a very salutary rule in this House against repetition by a Member, and I think it would be a much more salutary rule if Members were not allowed to repeat that which has gone before in the Debate. I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few minutes. There is an objection to Clauses 31 and 32 of this Bill, and in the Fifth Schedule to the Bill five counties are mentioned. I happen to represent one of those counties, and to represent all the places in that county which are detailed there except the first, for which an hon. Member who is present, will, no doubt, speak. On behalf of the districts of Chertsey, West Molesey, and the others, I have been requested by my constituents to oppose this Bill unless some considerable concession is made in respect of Clauses 31 and 32. I have also a petition from the Richmond watermen, and though reference to that would come more properly from the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Becker), in case that hon. Member does not happen to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I may mention that they protest most strongly against the repeal of Section 233 of the Act of 1894 and the inclusion of Clause 50 in the Bill. Brevity is the soul of wit, and I do not propose to detain the House further.

Mr. GILLETT: While I think the remarks of the Minister may apply exceedingly well to the speeches of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Gray) and the hon. and gallant Member for Henley (Captain Terrell), they in no way apply to the views held by my Friends and myself. The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment raised a definite point that the sum being asked for was extravagant
and was not required. I agree with the Minister in what he says about the river. I cannot pretend to share the love which I know he has had for the river for many years, but to a very large extent I hold similar views. What we complain of, however, is that this body is asking for a larger amount than is needed for the work which they propose to carry out. That is our complaint. The Minister of Transport said it might be £800 or £8,000. We are talking of £50,000. That, so far as we understand, is to be imposed on the district over which the Metropolitan Water Board has control for something like 10 or 20 years. I think the House will agree with me that is a matter worth talking about. The amazing thing was that the Member for Southwark Central (Mr. Gilbert), when he replied, never answered the complaints made. We said there was a mistake made by the Commission, that they had muddled capital with maintenance. My hon. Friend never attempted to answer that point. He said also that the actual facts in the Estimates were in excess of the amount required.

Mr. GILBERT: I am sure my hon. Friend will allow me to say I did mention the negotiations which had been going on between the Metropolitan Water Board and the conservancy with the object of arriving at an agreed sum, and I was hoping to be able to tell the House that we had agreed on a sum. I regret I am not able to do that. The Metropolitan Water Board is not opposing the Bill on Second Reading.

Mr. GILLETT: I have nothing to do with the Water Board; I am looking after the interests of my constituents. The hon. Member gave us a most extraordinary answer, especially coming from a member of the Liberal party, who pride themselves on being the only party in this Chamber who stand for economy. All he said was, "Why did you trouble about £50,000? The expenditure of the Metropolitan Water Board is something over £4,000,000."

Mr. GILBERT: I never said anything of the kind. What I said was that any amount that they got reduced from the Water Board grant would not reduce the price of water to the London consumer.

Mr. GILLETT: I quite agree, but that is not answering the question. The
point is whether it is to raise £50,000 or £100,000, and the answer in no way met the point. My hon. Friend says that an understanding was given that the charges should be raised. I understand that at the present time the tolls have been rejected, and I am not surprised to find that the increase is 150 per cent. with regard to tolls over the pre-War figure. Then having increased the tolls by 150 per cent. they are asking the Water Board to raise their contribution by 150 per cent. I ask whether any other municipal body to-day has an increase in its expenditure similar to this. That is our case, and that is what we are complaining about. It seems to me that we have had no definite answer to this question to-night, and that is why we are raising our protest. It is on those grounds that my Friends who move this Motion against the Bill, and it is on those lines we are basing our position.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: I think the last speaker has entirely missed the mark in so far as the Amendment is to prevent this Bill going further. A Bill of this character in accordance with Parliamentary usage would go to a Committee upstairs to have its details examined. [Interruption.] I can assure my hon. Friend who interrupts that Parliamentary counsel earn their wage and that I cannot assist them by reason of my position in this House. Therefore, do not let us have a gibe at the Parliamentary counsel or the lawyers. What I want to make the House appreciate—and this is a new House—is this, that it is an almost unparalleled thing to stop a Bill of this description going upstairs so that its details can be considered in Committee.
Now let us come to the question that agitates my hon. Friends on this side of the House. I represent the County of Middlesex, which is certainly the most Highly assessed county that borders the river Thames outside the county of London. They have examined this Bill in great detail, and have come to the conclusion that the proposals to charge the riparian parishes are perfectly fair proposals. I want this House to realise that the Schedule to which this penny

rate applies has carefully delimited the various urban districts and boroughs which are to be chargeable, and when hon. Members look at the counties which are objecting so strongly, those of us who know anything at all about the river itself will be found to admit that every one of those districts are contiguous to the river in question. My own county is very carefully kept to these riverside areas and to the parishes which immediately adjoin, and it derives benefit. It is supposed that the conservancy confer no benefit on these people, but what would happen to these districts if the towpaths, the banks, and the streams that run into the river were not taken care of in order to preserve the waters? First of all, you would have the land overflowed with water and useless for agricultural purposes. The expenditure of the Thames Conservancy in respect of these up-river districts is very considerable, and therefore it is fair, since the need arises for the money, that they should be put upon terms of paying so small a contribution as this. I am not going to prevent this Bill being divided upon, and therefore I appeal once more, as a person representing a county that is going to pay, that hon. Members should not raise objections, but should let this Bill go upstairs and be considered on its merits in Committee.

Mr. GILBERT: rose in his place, and claimed to move,
"That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. H. MORRISON: In view of the favourable line towards the London case taken by the Government and, I think, the House generally, I ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Mr. GILBERT: rose in his place, and claimed to move,
"That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 61.

Division No. 24.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Ackroyd, T. R.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Alstead, R.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Ammon, Charles George


Attlee, Major Clement R.
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Paling, W.


Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Baker, W. J.
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Perry, S. F.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfield)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Barclay, R. Noton
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Pielou, D. P.


Barnes, A.
Hillary, A. E.
Potts, John S.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Purcell, A. A.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hobhouse, A. L.
Raffan, P. W.


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Raffety, F. W.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hodges, Frank
Raine, W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hoffman, P. C.
Raynes, W. R.


Broad, F. A.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Bromfield, William
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Remer, J. R.


Buchanan, G.
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Buckie, J.
Hudson, J. H.
Ritson, J.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Isaacs, G. A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Bullock, Captain M.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Robertson, T. A.


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Ropner, Major L.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Rose, Frank H.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Chapman, Sir S.
Jephcott, A. R.
Royce, William Stapleton


Chapple, Dr. William A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Charleton, H. C.
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Clarke, A.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Savery, S. S.


Climie, R.
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Scurr, John


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sexton, James


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Sherwood, George Henry


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simpson, J. Hope


Collins, Patrick (Walsall)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (pontypridd)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Comyns-Carr, A. S.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cope, Major William
Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Snell, Harry


Costello, L. W. J.
Kedward, R. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Kennedy, T.
Spence, R.


Cove, W. G.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Dalkeith, Earl of
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, D.
Spoor, B. G.


Dickson, T.
Lamb, J. Q.
Stephen, Campbell


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lansbury, George
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Dukes, C.
Laverack, F. J.
Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Duncan, C.
Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Dunn, J. Freeman
Lawson, John James
Sullivan, J.


Ednam, Viscount
Leach, W.
Sunlight, J.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)
Lee, F.
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Egan, W. H.
Lindley, F. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Darby)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Lorimer, H. D.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Finney, V. H.
Lumley, L. R.
Thompson, piers G. (Torquay)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Lunn, William
Toole, J.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
McCrae, Sir George
Tout, W. J.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Turner, Ben


Gavan-Duffy, Thomas
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Varley, Frank B.


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Macfadyen, E.
Viant, S. P.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Mackinder, W.
Waddington, R.


Gillett, George M.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Gosling, Harry
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Warne, G. H.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


GreeNall, T.
Marley, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Weir, L. M.


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)
Welsh, J. C.


Grenfell, D. B. (Glamorgan)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Westwood, J.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James
Whiteley, W.


Groves, T.
Mills, J. E.
WigNall, James


Grundy, T. W.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Williams, Lt.-Col. T. S. B. (Kennington)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Montague, Frederick
Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, Walter


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Murray, Robert
Wise, Sir Fredric


Harris, John (Hackney, North)
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Harris, Percy A.
Naylor, T. E.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Harvey, C. M. B. (Aberd'n & Kincardne)
Nesbitt, Robert C.
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Nixon, H.



Haycock, A. W.
Oliver, George Harold
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Owen, Major G.
Mr. Gilbert and Sir Herbert Nield.


NOES.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Bonwick, A.
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. H. (Prtsmth. S.)


Becker, Harry
Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Clayton, G. C.


Black, J. W.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Darbishire, C. W.




Duckworth, John
M'Entee, V. L.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Eden, Captain Anthony
Maden, H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mansel, Sir Courtenay
Stranger, Innes Harold


Foot, Isaac
Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Meller, R. J.
Sutcliffe, T.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morse, W. E.
Tattersall, J. L.


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Murrell, Frank
Thornton, Maxwell R.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hartington, Marquess of
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wells, S. R.


Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
White, H. G. (Birkenhead. E.)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Penny, Frederick George
Willison, H.


Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Philipson, Mabel
Woodwark, Lieut-Colonel G. G.


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Phillipps, Vivian
Wragg, Herbert


Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)
Rathbone, Hugh R.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Keens, T.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper



Lessing, E.
Rea, W. Russell
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Linfield, F. C.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Captain Terrell and Mr. F. Gray.


Loverseed, J. F.




Bill read a Second time, and committed.

Mr. BECKER: The following Instruction stood on the Order Paper in the name of
That it be an Instruction to the Committee upon the Bill that they do divide the Bill into two parts and do report Parts V and VI and any relative Schedules, separately, to the House after such inquiry thereon as may seem to them expedient.

Mr. BECKER: I beg to move.

HON. MEMBERS: Object!

Mr. BECKER: On a point of Order. If the objection be persisted in, does it mean that the Instruction cannot possibly be voted upon at all?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, unless the hon. Gentleman can persuade the Chairman of Ways and Means to put it down for another evening.

Orders of the Day — TRADE FACILITIES BILL.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Postponed Proceeding resumed.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (FEMALE ORPHAN ASYLUM, ETC.) CONFIRMATION BILL.

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Morgan Jones.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. F. Hall]

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I wish to raise the question in order to obtain a reply from the Treasury as to their attitude to the last Report on the compensation of the victims of air raids and bombardments. It will be generally agreed that the question has been going on long enough. It is five years since the end of the War, and it is time the whole question was wound up and it was definitely settled what the people are to get. Already some of those who were to receive compensation are either dead or have removed to other localities. Some to whom the money would have been extremely useful, if it had been paid, have given up all hope of receiving it. A large number of the claims went through considerable pruning, and those eventually assessed and audited amounted to just over £7,000,000. In this last Report we understand that those who have gone through the pruning, whose claims have been audited, are to receive only a percentage of the money owing to them. Surely it depends on what is the attitude taken up on this question? Is it a question of charity or duty to the victims of the air raids from bombardment? I think that it is a question of duty, and not charity at all, and it is time that the House recognised that this money is due to these people; it is a moral obligation that must be fulfilled and the money paid. We need not discuss the question whether it is necessary to appoint a Royal Commission.
These claims might have been paid without appointing a Royal Commission, because that is merely a method of shelving the discharge of these obligations. We have had two Reports from Royal Commissions, and it is this last Report on which I require a reply. My constituency was very much affected by these bombardments. The part of East Kent which I represent was subjected to many bombardments and air raids because enemy aeroplanes passed over East Kent both coming to this country and going back again, and very often they let fall the bombs which were not expended upon the Metropolis. Consequently, there was a tremendous amount of damage, directly and indirectly, in the Isle of Thanet, and no doubt the same thing applies to other parts of the country. That part of the country was just as much in the front line as those in France, and those subject to these terrible bombardments should have their case considered from that point of view and with all sympathy. We should have a feeling that we have a duty to perform towards these people.
There are several points in this Report which I should like to raise. I suggest that it is very unsound to penalise the non-insured. There was during the War a fund that was called the Government Anti-Aircraft Insurance Scheme. The amount paid into the Exchequer in 1918 from my district in this way was about £10,000,000. I do not think anyone has yet discovered what became of that money which was paid in mostly from East Kent. At any rate, the Government having made a fairly large profit out of its insurance scheme, the people in that part of the world think that in return their claims should be very sympathetically considered. As to those who did not insure, do the Government take the point of view that it was entirely their own fault, because the Report rather censured those who failed to insure; or do they take the view that those who did not are in a similar position to that of many people in regard to Income Tax?
A number of people through not understanding the incidence do not apply for the money which they really could get back if they put in the right forms, and I suggest that many people, not through negligence, may have failed to apply for insurance and we should not censure them
for that, but consider their case just as sympathetically. I asked a question in the House quite recently as to the amount that was being paid in my part of the country, and the answer of the Board of Trade was that the names are classified in geographical areas, and that the time and trouble involved in ascertaining the information would not be justified by the results. The answer also drew attention to a statement in the Report that in the case of the Government Air Raid Insurance experience showed that certain zones were within striking distance of enemy aircraft, and zones were carefully fixed in view of the dates and localities of the raids.
As the last Report deals with zones and geographical areas, the Minister could easily get me the information as to how much those claims amounted to and how much it is intended to pay. Another matter on which there is considerable feeling is that of belated claims. The Report says of them:
A very large number of fresh claims have been received, and continue to be received, which it is impossible to excuse or admit.
It adds:
A great many came from seamen or their dependants and very few from sufferers from air raids.
It also states that the lateness was due not to ignorance or lack of opportunity of knowing of the compensation scheme, but to scepticism about the utility of a claim and indifference and unwillingness to take trouble.
Is not that rather sweeping? I do not wish to criticise the Royal Commission, but I think it should have considered this matter with more sympathy and from a quite different angle. Many people were unaware until very late that they could make claims. I am sure hon. Members have had a vast correspondence on the matter. I know it is difficult enough for anyone who has had experience of it, but some of these people are absolutely at a loss with these forms, and it is for the Ministry to realise that the sending of these belated claims is not because people do not want the money or have neglected to ask their Member to do something for them, but because they do not understand how to do it. Probably months afterwards their Member has written and
told them how to apply and they have then sent in their claims late. Although the Commission is an official body, perhaps not with a great deal of sympathy, it is for the Government to show that sympathy and not to sit behind the fence of the Commission and say, "This is the Report and we must abide by it." I think the Government is morally bound to satisfy these claims in full.
I admit that there is, roughly, £2,200,000 owing, but is it suggested that we should wait for the other £2,000,000—because I understand it is only a payment on account—until the reparations come from Germany before the remainder is spent? Of course, the reparations may be forthcoming from Germany; it is for this House to see that they are. By the time, however, that Germany pays some of these people may be dead. For it is five, six or seven years since some of these claims were originally sent in. If these people do not receive their money it will be perfectly useless to keep on raising the question in this House as time goes on, and I think we here and now ought to settle the whole matter, and, if the Minister cannot give us a decision, he should promise that we have time for discussion later on, when he gives us his policy on the whole matter. I think that when the Commission was first appointed it should not have been tied down to the sum of £5,000,000. It should have been able to fix, possibly, the sum of money that it thought would be sufficient to meet these claims. It is so tied down to a definite sum of money, and it is not the fault of the Royal Commission that it is only suggested that these claims should be paid in part. They had no other course. They had only a certain sum of money given them, and had they been told that extra money would have been provided they would have said that the claims should have been paid in full. It is up to the Government to say whether the money can be provided, and if the House looks on it from the point of view of an obligation to those who suffered in the War and a duty which we owe to them quickly and not in five or six years hence, these people will be paid in full.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The House will recognise that, in the few minutes that remain, I cannot do more than string together one or two sentences in reply to the hon. Member who has raised this question. In very short form, the House will recollect that there was a plea that people should insure against this risk In point of fact, large numbers neglected to do so, and they suffered damage, and it was afterwards represented to the Government that they should undertake and face the liability and make some pro vision for it. I have looked into the past controversies on this matter, and I think it is clear beyond doubt that, while it is connected with the problem of reparation, the Government has never admitted that it was liable to compensate people who suffered in this way. The claim for reparations is a claim by one country upon another. This is a matter of individuals who have undoubtedly suffered because of these conditions. That, of course, is a problem entirely apart from the claim of one country against another. As regards the claims on the £5,000,000 which was set aside in 1920 as a purely ex gratia payment or allowance by the Government of the day, the facts are that of that money £2,300,000 has been paid in personal claims, and that we propose to pay the remainder, £2,700,000 in property claims by a process of making full payment up to the first £250 and a certain percentage after that.
At no time has it been admitted by the Government of the day — this is no doubt a matter for further discussion if opportunity arise—that it is under any duty to pay these people in full. I am only telling the House what has been done, and what we now propose to do. I think £2,700,000 is a substantial concession out of the £7,000,000, which is the total range of the assessment of property claims. I must add a word regarding the late claims. The fullest appeal was made by advertisement to all people interested to lodge their appeals. It is said there were hardships and difficulties which prevented many appeals being lodged, and on that point a statement will be made within a day or two as to provision which we hope to be able to make in that class of case. I wish
there had been a fuller opportunity for reply, but that is all the information I can give the House in the very brief time at my disposal.

The SPEAKER has nominated Sir Robert Aske, Baronet, to serve on the Ecclesiastical Committee, in the room of the right

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

hon. Sir John Simon, K.C.V.O., K.C., resigned.